View Full Version : Safety & muzzleloaders - are we buying bombs?

July 27, 2006, 07:40 PM
I want to throw something out there for the experienced ML folks on the board.

The time has arrived in my life where I have decided to enter the ML hunting game. Part of the reason for this is the LARGE bucks that run around in Nebraska from Dec 1st - Dec 31st :p , and part of the reason is that like archery, it appeals to the sportsman in me.

I've been researching what to buy, and I keep running across some interesting info. First, there is no uniform governing body (like SAAMI for rifle cartridges). Apparently this means that it's really a free-for-all with regards to standards of safety.

Barrels on guns like CVA's, Winchesters, and others (that are all made in the same shops outside of this country) have pressure limits PRINTED RIGHT ON THE BARREL that are well below an average ML load. :eek: I've also read that CVA's in particular are historically not the safest gun.

While I take some of what Chuck Hawks has to say with a grain of salt, Randy Wakeman has my attention and when he talks ML on the Chuckhawks webpage, I listen.

He seems to be on a mission with regards to ML safety. Here's a couple of articles he's written about some of the safety issues. It's interesting to note that companies aren't hiding anything, they just count on our ignornace:


I know there's been some Randy Wakeman discussion here in the past, and those with CVA's who've taken "x" number of deer safetly will have their own opinions, but am I the only one concerned about this? It seems laughably STUPID to put 3 Pyrodex pellets down the barrel of a ML that is clearly marked does not allow for those pressures.

I do know that while CVA and Winchester barrels are stamped with MAXIMUM pressures of around 10,000 PSI and not proof tested, Savage proof tests each and every one of their barrels to a number FAR greater than that.

It's one of the reasons I am in the market for a Savage or Knight ML.

Am I way off base? Have I been misled? Or does everyone else assume that because their guns are mass produced and sold across the country it is inherently safe?

July 27, 2006, 09:17 PM
Most American barrels aren't proof tested at all. Yet, I'd wager that an objective metalurgical analysis would be able to provide a relatively reliable qualitative estimate of any manfacturer's barrel as far as maximum black powder pressures go.
Maybe the Spanish barrels are under "proofed" or the pressure of 150 grains of Pyrodex pellets is being overestimated. Dangerous pressures are also related to barrel length and other specifications as well, including the thickness of the barrel wall, projectile weight, and you have to remember that the projectile is often pre-engraved before firing rather than while it's being fired as is a CF rifle bullet.
It's all something to be aware of I guess, but from what I've always understood, the Italian barrels are proofed for at least 1.5 times their recommended maximum black powder loading, yet the proof mark rating itself may not reflect that fact. Also, individual barrels aren't proofed, only small samples are selected from each batch for proof testing which allows the proof mark to be added to all the other barrels.
Generally speaking, I'm not concerned about any modern steel barrel blowing up, especially since I don't shoot with 150 grain loads of anything, nor Pyrodex pellets. ;)
It's always been the antique guns that have been more of a concern, and most people who actually try to blow up their barrels by doing there own proof testing I believe, have a hard time actually succeeding in doing it.
Do you know of any objective analysis where a particular barrel which was actually rated for 150 grains of powder resulted in a barrel failure by shooting it?
The science of metalurgical testing is so developed that it's difficult to believe that there's isn't a lawyer out there who would pay the pittance to blow up a few barrels to prove a safety liability issue exists, and run that company out of business with litigation.
Why do you think that hasn't happened yet? Maybe because the proof mark bears no direct relationship to the actual strength of the barrels in question?
Maybe the proof mark is not intended to be a real maximum barrel rating at all, but rather the required (or minimum) recommended rating to meet Spanish legal "proofing" purposes, and a base from which an actual 1.5 times barrel strength ratio guarantee (of sorts) is surmised by the consumer.
In other words, it may be much ado about nothing, and a legal "red herring".
Of course, any black powder shooter should always be aware of the potential for their barrel to blow up, and that's why shooters should be encouraged to be more conservative and err on the side of safety with their BP loadings, as the original barrel proof rating flap might imply. But none of this necessarily means that any particular gun is unsafe IMO, especially not without more "proof" (pun intended :D ).

July 27, 2006, 09:45 PM
Articap -

Thanks for the reply. Did you follow the links I posted and read them?

First, to assume barrels are safe just because if they weren't lawyers would have a hayday, may be a fallacy. CVA is a prime example. They had SUCH a problem with exploding barrels a few years back that the litigation from injured users bankrupt the company. So, this is not an imaginary problem - a substancial amount of consumers are (or, have been) injured.

There also seems to be some confusion about the minumum proof mark. You suggest that maybe it's the minumum pressure and barrel strengths are surmised to be 1.5x that amount. The standard CVA/Winchester mark is 700 kp/cm² - that is STAMPED on the barrel! Roughly equel to 10,000 PSI, even a 1.5x multiplication factor as you suggest would mean the barrel is safe for 15,000 PSI. Yet, that same gun's instructions call for a max load of 150 grains of BP, which depending on the projectile, will result in over 20,000 PSI easy.

I'm not trying to cause an argument but the math does NOT add up for me. Part of the problem I see is that there is no standard for ML firearms. With a spec like SAAMI, we know EXACTLY what to expect and companies adhere to that standard, albeit voluntarily. There are no "maybe's".

I'm going to be making phone calls to manufactorers myself and inspecting barrels at both Basspro and Cabelas this weekend. I may also explore some case law just to satisfy my own curiousity.

I understand you are safe and use lighter loads in your ML, but the average weekend warrior is likely to crack open his $109 Wal-Mart special and load it to MAX because the instructions say it's safe.

My mind is not made up... I'm playing devils advocate here so humor my arguments. But read the articles under the "Safety" section here:


If I can verify for myself some of what Wakeman says, it's a scary, eye-opening problem!

July 28, 2006, 01:19 AM
As long as your are shooting normal loads you don't have to worry about it blowing up. If you push the envelope you'll experience the hammer re-cocking itself when you shoot.(with a percussion gun).That means back off the powder. I have seen them blow the hammer off,strip the internals of the lock and blow the drum off the side of the barrel. With a flinter you'll experience a blast back out of the touchhole!!
Now if you want to use more than 100 grains of FFG in a muzzler,you need to get a inline. They use up to 150 grains and kick like a Arkansas mule!!!!
I have double balled a 50 cal with 100 grains in it and when I got up off the ground the rifle was ready to do it again! I wasn't.
Be careful with cheap imports fron Japan or some weird country.
Buy a brand name like Lyman,Cva,Uberti,Pedersoli ans Investarms and youll be safe.
Also while carrying my capper hunting I use a piece of leather over the cap and let the hammer down on it. When I cock it to shoot, the leather falls off and she's ready to go.
My 54 cal rifle loves 85gr.FFG and that'll drop a deer easily. I have dropped hawgs with the same rifle with 75 gr.
No need for much more.
And one more thing. Watch down beside your lock where it fits to the rifle. I seen a flinter dribble powder down behind the lock and after a bit of buildup, it blew the lock off the rifle!!!

July 28, 2006, 07:56 AM
AS someone already touched on .. with any muzzle loading rifle you are putting the ball / bullet down the barrel from the exit point ...if you were to force something down the barrel that doesn`t fit and you have to hammer it home .. then the pressures will be much greater .. as in the story of how rifleing was invented back in the days of smooth bores.... rifleing was added to the smooth bore to releive the pressure of loading into a dirty barrel in a battle the smooth bore`s would become dangerous from the fouling so the groves we now call rifleing we first used to make smooth bore safer to load after the bore had gotten fouled .Luck have it the rifleing also caused the ball to spinn and walla we have rifleing .

July 28, 2006, 08:50 AM
Howdy! I may be able to add some insight to this subject. Been a muzzleloader rifle shooter/reader of info/instructor/builder/and seller for years. Haven't sold for Five years. It had been the norm for plenty of muzzleloading barrels to be made of 12L14 steel.Some surmiss that steel should not be used. Softer for machining purposes. Even major US companies have used it. Now that had been for the traditional side locks. The newer brand name "Inlines" that are advertised to be able to handle 150gr. powder ot three pellets "may" be better steel. I surely hope it is. When reports of burst barrels were compiled back when the side locks were the "thing" the biggest percentage of them were loaded to 100gr. or more "FFFg" powder and a big heavy conical bullet. Now I always considered a big conical fired with up to 100gr. of "FFg" to be safe. I instructed customers to avoid "FFFg" while firing heavy conicals. Avoid FFFg in blackpowder or substitutes. With heavy lead or saboted conicals 80gr. "FFg" will kill an Elk at the proper range. Close. Anyway,I believe that the new inlines from the reputable companies propably have better steel than 12L14 in the barrels. If not then don't fire them with over 80gr. FFg powder while using heavy conicals.. The FFg 777 Hodgdon is hotter than FFFg blackpowder so it should be reduced at least 15%. Check the distributors or the manufacturers and ask the type of steel in the barrels and do research from that point. In a prior reply it was related that to buy from a reputable distributor is wise and the names of some were given, I imagine, by a fraud reporting info they have no facts to back up their claim. CVA sells guns from Spain and from all the reports of accidents "any muzzleloader from Spain should absolutely be avoided". That is my staunch opinion. Cheap barrel steel. The accidents reports back that claim.CVA sells barrels made in Spain. Anyone touting a company that sells Spainish muzzleloaders as a reputable source to buy from is misguided and not knowledgeble. Any Spainish gun barrel on a muzzleloader should use the rule of 80gr. FFg/heavy conical(as apposed to round ball) as the maximum. Italian guns should be treated as the traditional sidelocks with the 80gr. FFg max. powder when using heavy conicals rule. Even TC Hawkens should follow the 80gr. with the heavy conical rule. The Lyman sidelocks and inlines also should follow that rule. A person could stretch the 80gr. to 100gr. if FFg is used but 80gr. is safer and is still a "womper" with the heavy conicals. This is an opinion I have from years of shooting and reading and listening to people first hand that either had an accident or knew a person that did. Naturally a traditionalist using round balls can use more than 80gr. FFg in the sidelocks. Well, I believe the reputation of the major US companies that sell inlines that are advertised as being able to handle 150gr. of powder and a heavy conical can be relied upon to be trusted. Major US companies? Knight Rifles. Thompson Center. Austin Halleck(treat the side lock as any other and use the max. 80gr. FFg with a heavy conical rule). Green Mountain Barrel company. Savage. There are some others but I can't remember them right now. A new company is coming out with an inline they say can handle 250 gr. of powder. Just stay away from any Spanish made rifle or barrel. Use the 80gr./heavy conical max. for any 12L14 steel barrel no matter who makes it and you should be safe. I believe the major US companies have a fear of litigation and probably have a large margin of error where recommended loads for rifle barrels are concerned. I believe anyone wanting to fire conicals with heavy powder charges in the 150gr. range should use a Knight Rifle or Thompson Center Rifle or the "recommended" barrel from Green Mountain Barrel Company or the Austin and Halleck inline or the Savage rifle. I believe any Italian inline should use the 80gr./heavy conical max rule just as the sidelocks should no matter who makes them. An exception I know of is October Country sells a huge rifle that can handle more than 150gr. FFg. There's a lot of pressure behind those 150gr.powder/heavy conical loads. Those loads can go into the 458 Winchester magnum range for ft./lbs at the muzzle and be more powerful than some 30-06 loads. There are loads that can be used in the inline muzzleloaders that can fire a "heavier" bullet than the 30-06 and do it a little faster. Check the velocities and bullet weights of loads from loading manuals for smokeless with the alleged velocities and bullet weights from muzzleloading load data. Those inlines can really pack a good punch and be more powerful than quite a few traditional smokeless cartridges used for hunting ect.ect. A hunter with one of those inlines has the opportunity to be ethical and kill humanely ,for sure, while stretching the distances touted as maximum by "an ethical hunter". I'm a traditionalist when it comes to muzzleloader rifle but I can appreciate the efficiency of the inlines and the opportunity a user of them has to be using a good ethical hunting tool. Now, I am stating my opinions in this reply. My opinions. I can be considered knowledeble but probably not be considered an expert. I am expert enough to form a "good advise" opinion I believe. I believe that their are some good people replying to posts in these forums on the internet but.......all the advise should be taken with a grain of salt and not be considered scientific fact and "truth". Not until you research the data or info for yourself and surmise the typed advise of anyone to be factual truth. Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it "truth". Same goes for anything printed in books. Any life threatening proceedure should be fully researched before it is exercised. Shooting guns certainly can be considered a life threatening proceedure and should be approached with caution, research, and knowledge.

Ohio Annie
July 28, 2006, 09:59 AM
The directions that came with my CVA rifle CLEARLY stated not to use more than 90 grains of Ffg sized powder. I use 777 which has higher pressures and have found my most accurate load (1-inch groups of 3 at 100 yards) to be 70 grains of 777 behind a saboted 180 gr. Hornady XTP bullet which is my load for a doe, a deer, a female deer at 50 yards.:)

Maybe higher loads are required for longer distances or something but for my kind of hunting, my setup is sufficient and I believe safe, according to my calculations.

July 28, 2006, 12:50 PM
I'm aware that CVA has had recalls, but so have Remington 870 shotgun barrels in the past. This may not have any direct relationship to the current flap. Even in the Chuckhawks reading, it was repeatedly mentioned that he doesn't really know the true strength of Spanish barrels. Isn't it possible that the Spanish manufacturers have tested their barrels for maximum strength yet can't put their own proof mark on them due to Spanish proofing law?
When a gun barrel is proofed and stressed, there's many different ways that the barrels can be analyzed for micro fractures using x-rays, etc...
It's reasonable to think that corporate testing of this sort has been done somewhere during the design or production stages.
I tend to believe that the proof is in the pudding. Show the scientific evidence about the true strength of the Spanish barrels. The articles didn't list specific models, just a country, Spain. Traditions guns are made by Ardessa. Who even makes CVA's? Yet they are all being lumped together.
Opinions are important, but so is proof. When people start over generalizing, then it becomes sensationalism. There's a flap over the proof mark, but other than that, what is there?
I'll bet that we can all agree that more actual objective test results would be helpful.
I've also heard it said that 150 grains of Pyrodex pellets equals about 120 grains of loose Pyrodex. If pellets & loose powder are not equal, then the actual high pressure claims are also somewhat suspect in my humble opinion. Plus some barrel lengths can't even burn all of that powder. What manual or gun is the stated pressure data coming from?
BTW, which Spanish sidelocks are recommending a max. loading of 150 grains of Pyrodex pellets? Why are we talking about sidelocks at all?
Isn't this a flap about Spanish inlines? Where's the news articles reporting incidents of exploding Spanish barrels with 150 grain pellet loadings? :rolleyes:

July 28, 2006, 05:24 PM
Ok I'll fess up, I got a CVA 1853 remington Zouave. I need no more than 60gr behind a round ball or a 500gr minnie ball. The latter is what i primarily use at a 200 pus range on a Deer, Elk, or Moose.
I have known Wayne for quite some time...long enough to know he wouldn't take the time to type all this info for just something to do. I never knew the Spanish barrels were not made as well and some others say Italian for example. I'm glad he typed that. I have been shootin' this Zouave for about 20yrs with out insident. Just because you shouldnt' exceed 80 or howerver many grs doesn't make it a bad gun for how it was ment to be used. Right?
I don't like punchin' my shoulder too hard and I do like hittin metalic silouettes from 25-100yds. 60gr has always worked well for me ..even in my .50 cal Tennessee Poorboy. Whether it's cap tin covers at 50' or a Qual at 100yds. What ever happended to workin' up a load?
Yup I'm a Traditionalist too, most of us Old farts are or those younger who like the historic value of the muzzleloader, Moutain Man, Danile Boone , Alamo, Lewis and Clark, ect...
That's probly why you generally see more talk about sidelocks. I don't even type the others name...LoL!
Ok just this once...In-Liners

July 28, 2006, 09:48 PM
For those of you who believe in proof marks.

Recieved a 36 Rem. repor with a .44 cylinder. This was in the factory carton, coated in the shipping grease.

I doubt they proofed that one...but it certainly had all the marks. thinking aobut the pressure issue presented in other posts, and the evidence that actual proof firing is NOT done, came to the conclusion that whatever "proof" means to the exporter doesn't seem to match our expectaions.

July 28, 2006, 11:19 PM
Well Smokin, a "58cal." has a big hole and big holes carry less pressure.
All I know is what I read or hear from others. I've never actually witnessed a ruptured barrel. Hope I never do. Once I read a long list of ruptured barrel incidences(years ago) and most all were using a load of FFFg in a rifle with a heavy conical. Most were Spainish barrels followed by Italian followed by U.S. barrels. Funny how some brand name rifles whether sidelock or inline just seem to carry a bad reputation for decades.
I 've shot 777 FFg in a 40cal. rifle with a 400gr. Lyman bullet with no bad effects. I reduced the load 15% compared to the 65gr. FFg blackpowder load that's usual for the muzzleloader rifle that utilizes a 40/65 barrel.

July 28, 2006, 11:36 PM
There was problems with barrels stamped JUKAR-Spain, they blew.
Also with the Japanese Tower flintlock pistols. Some had welded breechplugs, some had no breechplugs at all!!!!!!!!
Other than that I never heard of any decent muzzler blowing a barrel unless it was misused.

July 29, 2006, 02:38 AM
I don't know how this works, either. Spanish steel barrels won't hold a slight overload.
With the steel made today, anywhere in the world, if they bought scrap and made barrells, they would probably be a better, tougher grade of steel than 100 years ago.

Fadala says they tried 50 grs in a 32 cal, for 1,000 fps, 10,000 psi, went to 100 grs, got 1,050 fps, 10,500 psi.

Where are the people coming up with the 25,000 psi? The larger the bore, the lower the psi for a given charge.

During the Civil War they made copies of the Colt's pistols, and charged the cyl and barrell with as much powder as it would hold, PLUS double balls, and blew up less than half of them, why would the Spanish steel be so bad?



July 29, 2006, 05:01 PM
Fact is CVA has been selling cheap muzzle loading guns since the 70 `s and selling more guns than others too .. and selling to more inexperienced first time shooters than all the better made gun companys .T/C for one . So i figure with this many guns in the hands of the most inexperienced there`s probally been the most mistakes made such as heavy loaded short started loads maybe even some with smokeless powders ... who knows ...what i do know is 2 years ago i saw a CVA 50 cal muzzle loading rifle at walley world for 54 bucks lock stock and barrel new with the box .. now what kind of Spanish made quality was built into that thing ... it`s no more than a pipe bomb with a cap lock and trigger... something bad waiting to happen ..good proof testing would cost more than what they are selling this thing to walley world for . But i guess for a guy thats trying to extend his deer hunting season i guess it`s a way ..

July 29, 2006, 07:09 PM
I remember reading a write up about the "original" H&R Huntsman muzzle loader and how a person died as a result of it's "defective breech plug" design. Please don't confuse this model with the currently produced H&R Huntsman model, the company and models are separated by decades.
The model design was based on their break open shotgun receiver, and the very first design had a non-threaded breech plug which might have been too thin. The shooter experienced a misfire and when he opened the action, the powder charge ignited latently and blew the breech plug out and killed him, if I recall correctly.
H&R made a subsequent design change to remedy the design weakness, but the company still went bankrupt, possibly from litigation resulting from the accident.
The company then had a management buyout (as well as another buyout recently by Marlin), and reorganized as New England Firearms/H&R 1871, and then after many years, they reintroduced a new Huntsman model rifle.
It's a saftey issue that people should be aware of since some of the original early production may still be on the market. Not all of them are defective, just the early 1st production models. An internet search may provide the relevant identifying information.

July 30, 2006, 06:17 PM
Thanks everyone for the interesting discussion and replies.

As it ended up, I decided to go ahead and get a ML that will last me for a few seasons to come.

Also, I'd read and heard enough to put a seed of doubt in my mind regarding the safety of cheap ML's. I didn't want to have to secong guess myself every time I pulled the trigger, even if the problems are a thing of the past.

It was actually easy enough to convince my wife to allow me the extra couple hundred bucks to buy the Thompson/Center Omega, "for safety reasons". Hopefully this ML will last me a few DOZEN seasons!

Now to find the right load.....

July 31, 2006, 01:10 AM

Proofhouses don't load a barrell and shoot it.

Proofhouses, even a hundred years ago, set up a train of barrells, 50 or more, and tested them all at the same time.

Them that shot, went to the inspectors, them that didn't, got fired again.

This is from the "Development of the Gun" by W.W.Greener.

Should you think you need more, I will post a link to an online version.


They ain't "pipe bombs". you guys make 'm so, with 150 gr loads for a .45 cal.

August 5, 2006, 07:35 AM

I believe that 120-130gr of loose Pyrodex is about equal to 2-Pyrodex pellets, at least from a velocity standpoint. Guess I'll have to spend some time with a chrony and my Encore to tell for sure.

As for strength, well, I certainly believe and trust that a T/C Encore or Omega will stand up to 3 Pyrodex pellets. A Knight certainly should. Not sure I'd try it with a cheap NEF, Traditions or CVA though. We sell enough of the cheapies at work right before muzzleloader season too. But we try to get the guys that really want a big-booming thunderstick to buy a Knight or Thompson.

So far though, 99% of the muzzleloader hunters I know shoot 2 pellets of either Pyrdoex or 777. Very rare is the 3-pellet shooter; they're about as common as sidehammer shooters in these parts!

August 5, 2006, 08:16 AM
every ml i've ever seen would not shoot staight with 3 pellets anyway. what good is all that pressure if it will blow you up, and it still wont hit what you are aimimg at? i just stick with 2 50g pellets. much better accuracy out of my knight.

August 7, 2006, 10:40 PM
Wow, that's a real eye-opener. Glad I don't use a CVA or 'Winchester'. In any event, I never use more than 100 gr of powder in my Traditions. This deserves a LOT more detailed investigation & analysis.

August 8, 2006, 12:34 AM
P-990, According to the Hodgdon website, it appears that you are right about a velocity increase of the Pyrodex Pellets compared to loose Pyrodex. The pellets seem to provide slightly higher velocities than Pyrodex P, and even more of a velocity increase over Pyrodex RS.
Thanks for correcting my error regarding the potency of the Pyrodex pellets, I failed to correctly remember the data. :eek:

August 8, 2006, 09:28 AM
FYI Guys:

This is from the Traditions website directly:

Traditions muzzleloaders are manufactured by Ardesa of Spain.

So, is Ardesa the same place CVA barrels are made? If not, are they just as bad as the CVA ones?

Help! Sure hope someone knows.... :eek:

I'm going down to 70 grains until I find out!

Wayner, where are the CVA barrels made? This is from the CVA website:

All CVA rifle, shotgun, and pistol barrels are manufactured in Spain.

Doesn't say which factory/where in Spain.

August 8, 2006, 02:31 PM
Anyone else have info on this? I'm dying to know the real deal - very interested to know whether my 2 traditions rifles are P.O.S.'s. I've been doing searches and cannot find out whether they're made at the same factory as the CVS's, and if not, is there any chance that the Ardesa factory uses better (and better heat treating of) steel than in the CVAs. I'm pretty sure that my owner's manual on both my Traditions do indeed specifically state that 150 grs of even BP substitute is OK - not that I would, but 100 gr of triple 7, yes I would and have so done, and that's in a .45 which creates higher pressures - so far no problems, but.....

August 8, 2006, 03:27 PM
How thick is this barrel .. across the flats .. i`ve seen a few spanish made barrels that were 1 inch thick .. but not many . most are much thinner .

August 9, 2006, 12:53 AM
Sundance, there's the beauty of Sidelock Smoke Poles. My tennessee Poorboy is 15/16 across the flats don't have a worry in the world about it. It'll shoot a 3 round cloverleaf at 100 yards and kill a deer at that distance with 60gr Goex BP behind one .490 patched ball...or a deerload of two .490 patched balls on top the same 60gr charge.
My .58 cal 1853 remington Zouave CVA made in Spain where the rains fall mainly on the plains. Shoots a 500gr mini balls Very accurately every time at 200yds and will make a hit at 300yds on top of the same ffg Goex 60gr charge. They have been doin' that for me for 20 years. I really don't understand 150gr of powder in a ML but I only shoot sidelocksno reason to shoot them other ones...HeHe!
The only thing that bothered me about CVA was that they stopped makin sidelock and jumped into inlines...I have no complaints about CVA's old stuff.

August 9, 2006, 09:38 AM
Here's some additional informative reading on the subject:



August 9, 2006, 09:47 PM
it appears (near as I can tell) that indeed CVAs, BPIs, "Winchesters", Traditions, and Austin & Halleck are all made at the same place in Spain. But the A&H's get special steel or heat treatment or both. I'm playing it safe, and sticking with 70 or 80 gr of 777 until I can afford my T/C Katahdin!

Mr. Wakeman may or may not be on to something - I am still undecided. Some say that he has a financial stake in the competition. He says no, no financial stake, so......

In any event, I will say this. It appears that some people HAVE BEEN injured by CVAs & Traditions, unless those stories are complete fabrications. And, these companies, in negotiating a settlement of the case for the injuries, can always claim "you have no surefire proof that you DIDN'T use 175+ grains of BP equivalent, in excess of recommendations". The plaintiff (injured person) has the burden of proof, so that can lead to settlements that (a) you don't hear about - they are kept confidential, and (b) where the injured persons get far less than what they should, even though they were in fact staying within the manufacturer's recommendations. Unless they have a witness that can say "I saw him - he only dropped in 3 pellets", then the case is weak, and companies like that can weasal out of liability on that basis. And supposedly, the reason for CVAs (the brand name) prior corporate entity going out of business was lawsuit settlements over injury cases like these. I do NOT know whether this is true or not, but I intend to find out - it could be a very interesting tidbit. If they filed bankruptcy, I should be able to find it in the public records - anyone know the exact name of the prior corporate entity that CVA was doing business as?

August 10, 2006, 12:50 AM
With all the burst barrel talk .. i have to say i can`t tell ya how many times i`ve seen new shooters shoot their muzzle loaders with a short started ball in the end of the barrel .. lucky for them they were shooting light weight round balls with only target loads of powder under 50 grs ....air space is the problem with black powder and the subs .. if the ball / bullet is seated properly on top of the powder burst barrels just don`t happen very often ... probally hard to prove in court though .. makes it hard on companys like CVA makeing guns so cheap and pputting them in the hands of people who other wise couldn`t afford the more expencive Thompson guns . The CVA guns served me well back in the 70`s when i was new to the sport and my dollars were buying baby food and diapers and just couldn`t afford the price on a Thompson .

August 10, 2006, 01:13 PM
It's interesting that on the Hodgdon website, all of the loading data for any kind of pellets whether 777 or Pyrodex is combined and there are no velocity distinctions made between them and they are "equal".
Yet, in loose form 777 is shown to be more potent than Pyrodex (Note .490 round ball velocities for each). That indicates that 777 may not be as potent in pellet form since it may not perform as well when "compacted", and/or Pyrodex may perform slightly better when more compacted, as when in pellet form.
This is the reason for my error about Pyrodex pellets Vs. loose, I was confusing Pyrodex pellets with 777 pellets as to being less potent than in its loose form.


August 12, 2006, 01:28 PM
Good point, articap, and thanks for the link.

Anyone have more detailed info on this subject? I can't decide if I should be hacked that I bought 2 piece o' junk Traditions, or whether the guns are fine. I do NOT want to worry about shooting 100 grains of 777, and at present, I am. This disgusts me. But then again, Wakeman could be full of it - hard to say. Really need more info, but my searching the net is not turning up any more actualy factual details than has already been posted here and on graybeard.

September 15, 2006, 05:27 PM
You can find Ardesa here:


October 7, 2006, 06:01 PM
I own 3 BP rifles, a TC Black Diamond in .50 cal, a CVA Optima Pro, and a Traditions Pursuit Pro. The latter two are Spanish made, 209 primers, all are .50 cal. The two Spanish have Magnum stamped on the barrel.

I have shot as a biggest load so far:

100 grains Triple 7 FFFg in the Black Diamond

150 grains 3 Triple 7 pellets in the CVA

150 grains 3 American Pioneer pellets in the Traditions

I was surprised not to notice much difference in recoil or noise shooting 100 grains or 150. I mostly shoot 240 gr bullets in sabots. My go to hunting load in the only legal hunting (I own WA legal no 209 primers allowed) TC Black Diamond w/musket caps is 80 grains of Triple 7 FFFg with a Speer 240 gr .430 wadcutter in a sabot. Very accurate and cheap to shoot! None of the guns are accurate with maximum loads.

October 8, 2006, 12:26 PM
Now I'm getting a little concerned!

I have a CVA 209 Wolf Magnum and have been using 295 gr Powerbelts over 100 grs of loose Triple 7.

Is this safe?

October 8, 2006, 02:28 PM
I honestly feel that there is a lot of hype involving these modern BP rifles. My impression from shooting 3 examples of these guns is that barrel length is not a great benefit. I think the longer barrels are less accurate. My TC Black Diamond in 22in barrel is by far my most accurate rifle. My CVA 29in is my worst.

I also feel the pre formed pellets are less powerful in terms of grains than loose powder. In my humble estimation the pellets are closer to 40 grains, making 3 pellets equal 120 grains.

I was dissappointed in the performance of these guns until with a lot of patience I settled on a reduced load.

80 grains of Triple 7 FFFg feels like 100 grains of FFg
100 grains of Triple 7 FFFg powder kicks much harder than 150 grains in 3 pellets.

It seems to me the lesser charge burns more completely and faster and might even result in greater velocity.

When I shoot 80 grains of FFFg the rifle actually cracks and everything feels right. I normally can shoot 2 in groups at 50 yards all day long.

The only scary thing I have seen is shooting CVA Buckslayer bullets. These conicals are hollow based and putting 100 grains of loose powder behind them results in a mule kick you will not soon forget. I tried it twice to be sure and will never try it again.

October 8, 2006, 09:43 PM
Maybe I'll just back that 100 grs of Tirple 7 back to 80 since its FFFG

Just shootin' metal tgts now anyway.

No sense wasting powder!

October 9, 2006, 09:59 AM
Marc: How much do those conicals cost? I've been shooting the PowerBelts but they are pretty expensive. Are they easy to load? (sometimes the powerbelts don't push down muzzle too easy unless you clean bbl well between shots..........

October 9, 2006, 10:10 AM
Hey marcs.... be sure to check your CVA manual to see what the max recommended load is - are you sure they SAY that 150 is safe? I wouldn't use 150 in either pellets or loose in a CVA, EVEN IF the manual says it's ok, knowing what I know now from this thread. But the manual may not even CLAIM that 150 is ok, even though it's touted as a "magnum". Yes, it worked for you a few times, but you may be flirting with danger there. If the manual says it's ok, and then it blows up on you, at least you can sue them. But if the manual says 100 or 120 is max, then you're toast. Most likely your manual will say something like this: "150 BP is ok, but NOT 150 Pyrodex, and definitely NOT 150 Triple 7" - most likely it will say download triple 7 by "xx" percentage, or that 100 or 120 is max charge with triple 7.

But I think you are right about loose powder being more powerful than pellets of the same weight.... being packed in tighter, this leads to physics that causes higher pressures.

October 9, 2006, 12:55 PM
I know Hodgon's recommends only up to 100 grs of FFFg Triple Seven whether gun is called magnum or not!

CVA manual recommends up to 100 grs of FFFg Triple Seven but only with Powerbelt bullets.

Still think I'll back off to 80 maybe 90 grs of FFFg. The guy that says 80 works good sounds like it makes sense. Don't know if thats with a Powerbelt bullet though...........

October 9, 2006, 03:15 PM
The one thing I have done in my testing is to try everything. I got Triple 7 in FFg, FFFg and pellets, Pyrodex pellets, American Pioneer FFFg and Pellets.

I also have shot 4 or 5 different bullets, sabots mostly 240 grain. I've shot the Maxi Balls and the Maxi Hunters and the CVA Buckslayers and recently the Powerbelts (not impressed) and a few others that I can't remember the name.

The heavier bullets (conicals) really up the pressures. I have only shot 150 grain loads 3 or 4 times, just to try it and always with a clean barrel, pelletized and with a 240 grain bullet. Having satisfied my curiousity I am now and in the future limiting my loads to less than 100 grains.

October 9, 2006, 03:32 PM
I recommend to anyone who is worried to pick up a copy of Lymans Black Powder Handbook & Loading Manual.

It includes basically all the available bullet, sabot, and conicals on the market. It has grid charts in all calibers, barrel lengths and twist rates and test each load in 10 grain increments from 60 gr to 150 gr against all the commercial powders except Triple 7.

The grid chart includes bullet wt., bull coef., sec. dens., and primer cap type.

Information left to right includes charge volume, muzzle velocity, muzzle energy, pressure, velocity 100 yds, energy 100 yds.

I always refer to it before a range trip. Oh, and it has cap and ball pistol data also!

October 9, 2006, 06:27 PM
If Whisk is correct about this:

I know Hodgon's recommends only up to 100 grs of FFFg Triple Seven whether gun is called magnum or not!

CVA manual recommends up to 100 grs of FFFg Triple Seven but only with Powerbelt bullets.

and you tried 150 gr Triple 7 pellets, then you clearly exceeded the recommendations, correct?

You say you try *everything* - have you tried 300 grains then? As long as you're ignoring (or not discovering) the recommendations, why not test that too? Unless I'm missing something, you're flirting with adopting the nickname "Ol' One-Eye Marc", clean barrel or not. I'm glad you're satisfied now at least - hopefully you won't try that again.

October 9, 2006, 11:56 PM
For clarification:

The Hodgon manual was referring to loose Triple 7 not pelets and it just showed the highest recommended load being 100 grs so I assumed that was the max.

I still think I'll back off to 80 grs. It actually did seem more accurate at 50 yds!

October 10, 2006, 07:27 AM
This from the CVA manual:

*Warning: This is a *Magnum* charge and can only be safely loaded in Magnum capable rifles. Magnum capable rifles include all CVA Break-Actions, Bolt Action in-lines (Firebolt, Magbolt, and HunterBolt) and any year 2001+ Eclipse and Stag Horn rifles. "These magnum capable" guns can be identified by the one piece barrel construction, a serial number ending in 01, 02, 03, and the designation "magnum" on the barrel. Such "magnum" loads do require the use of a musket cap or preferably the #209 shotgun primer ignition in order to fully ignite the charge. Such "magnum" loads should never be fired in conventional In-Lines that do not feature the one-piece Monoblock barrel design.

I always read the manual first. I'm good to go. My Optima Pro is CVA's new top line rifle. The barrel is thick, the gun is 8 1/2 lbs heavy. Thanks for the concern!

October 10, 2006, 09:45 AM
From Hodgon website:

Powder Charge (Gr.)
Pellets Used *
Velocity (FPS)
295 Gr. Power Belt 80 One 50 cal. / 50 gr. + One 50 cal. / 30 gr.1431 295 Gr. Power Belt 90 Three 50 cal. / 30 gr.1484 295 Gr. Power Belt 100 Two 50 cal. / 50 gr.1555 348 Gr. Power Belt 80 One 50 cal. / 50 gr. + One 50 cal. / 30 gr.1351 348 Gr. Power Belt 90 Three 50 cal. / 30 gr.1417 348 Gr. Power Belt 100 Two 50 cal. / 50 gr.1469 405 Gr. Power Belt 80 One 50 cal. / 50 gr. + One 50 cal. / 30 gr.1100 405 Gr. Power Belt 100 Two 50 cal. / 50 gr.1386

Like I said, for some reason they stop at 100 grs.

Think I'll stop at 80 for now with loose FFFg and my 295 gr Powerbelts!

October 11, 2006, 07:45 AM
Here's an example of something I got from the Lyman BP Handbook:

50 Cal 22" barrel 1-24 Twist
Projectile Hornady Sabot 240gr, cci #11, Pyrodex RS
120 gr, MV 1864, ME Ft lbs 1852, pressure 29,900 [email protected] 1532, Energy Ft lbs @100yd 1251

Same thing using 3 Pyrodex 50 gr pellets
150 gr, MV 2049, ME Ft lbs 2238, pressure 27,000 [email protected] 1692, Energy Ft lbs @100yd 1526

Note that the pressure is actually less in the 150 grain pellet charge. It's interesting stuff, if you don't have a chrony, again I recommend the book.

October 11, 2006, 09:40 AM


I have a friend who has shot 3 50/50 Pyrodex pellets behind a 295 gr Powerbelt for a long time with a Magnum CVA

He's never had a problem

I just figure its like the 8 lb "lawyer triggers" they put on even little 22's now!

They are vastly erring on the side of safety for legal reasons

I think the problem comes with pushing the limits (150 grs of ANYTHING) when basic safety measure are not adhered to such as cleaning bore every few shots to ensure the bullet seats all the way down to the powder charge not leaving a dangerous "gap".

I know my 209 CVA Wolf Magnum appears to be built well but without a metalurgical analysis of the bbl how would anyone know? A golf pro years ago told me (after I had bought a set of graphite sticks at WalMart for half what the pro shop sold them for) "do you know where the "seconds" go after the spectrographical analysis of the shafts, etc. ?"

Yep. Wally World.

But I'm not a good enough duffer for it even to probably ever matter. But with a thing that goes BOOM! that logic may not serve one well........

October 11, 2006, 11:51 AM
A great example of that lawyer effect is written into Piettas manual for the 1858 Remington Revolver. Recommended charge 15 grs, maximum 18 grs. I guess I'll have to stop shooting those 30 grain Pyrodex Pistol pellets out of it! LOL

October 11, 2006, 12:54 PM
Man! I've been a shootin' 25 gr charges in mine since I bought it from Cabela's!

25 grs of loose FFFg Triple Seven no less!

Guess I'm lucky to be alive! :D

It's one hell of a nice gun BTW. For $179...... hard to beat!

I have quite a few handguns and it is by far my favorite...........

October 11, 2006, 04:16 PM
If anyone is interested, the very best bullet I have found in terms of accuracy is the Buffalo Bullet in yellow sabot 240 grain hollow point boat tail. Tested in all three of my rifles. It is impossible to beat. They come 32 to a box around $15.00 so they aren't cheap.

I have approximated this bullet using MMP sabots and Speer 240 grain semiwadcutters in lead. The Speers are $10.00 a hundred and the sabots are $5.00 per 50. Damn close results.

October 12, 2006, 09:35 AM
what load do you use with the 240 gr Speer's :confused:

grains and type of powder. also just powder and bullet I presume :confused:

October 12, 2006, 12:18 PM
I have used up to 150 grains with the Speers semiwadcutter. It is Speer 44 CAL 240 GR .430 SWC #4660. You will find these in the handloaders section at the sporting goods store. Also Hornady and TC sabots can be found anywhere that has BP supplies, I happen to like the MMP sabots the best. I buy the MMP sabots sized .430 50 cal from cabelas. The bullet goes in a sabot! They make great practice loads. I have found they shoot very tight groups with 80 grains of T7. Same as my favorite Buffalo bullet. The Buffalo bullet however will retain it's accuracy with hotter loads than the Speer does.

Another one worth mentioning from Cabelas is the Precision Rifles Dead Center Lead Bullet, w/plastic tip in orange sabot. that one is 240 Dead Center .40/.50 caliber good long range choice.

The Speer for $10.00 a hundred is hard to beat.

October 15, 2006, 01:15 AM
The speer is a conical non-patched bullet?

How much Triple 7 is recommended?

80 grs?

October 15, 2006, 07:50 PM

It's actually a pistol bullet meant to be loaded into .44-caliber cartridges (.44 Magnum, .44 Special). He's talking about buying the bullets and sabots seperate and making a saboted combination out of them.


I can beat $10/100. How about $27 for 500, OTD? ;) Bulk 240gr lead SWC, Northeast Precision, sized .430".

How do you like the MMPs versus the Hornady and TC sabots? I've tried the TCs with OK results in .50/.44 and have a package of Hornadys to try. I thought about buying some MMPs and some .452" bullets for my TC.

October 15, 2006, 10:53 PM

That is a good deal on SWC. The MMP sabots kind of remind me of the ones that are used in the Buffalo Bullets. They have a consistant feel in loading. I haven't had any problem having to pound them down. They are similar to the Hornadys. The MMPs seem to work better with the wadcutters and the Hornady TC type I like with jacketed bullets. There isn't really a huge difference. The difference may be more specific to what barrel you are using. That's good to know about the bulk price I need to look around. I wouldn't mind having a big store of sabots and bullets!

March 2, 2009, 04:55 PM
after reading the forum i think i blew it i just bought the CVA kodiac pro magnum from cabellas now you guys got me worried about this thing blowing up in my face i called cabellas they said return the gun no problem so i think im going with the Thompson/Center Omega .50-Caliber i should have read this before i bought this firearm so any suggestions please feel free to post your thoughts
thank you

March 2, 2009, 07:05 PM
Go back and read the dates on these posts. CVA is still in business, they have not been sued by dozens of widows demanding compensation for wrongful deaths. Wakeman has pretty much been discredited although he continues his crusade without the support of the vast majority of muzzleloader shooters. I suggest you also use the power of the internet to find documentation of any incidents - if there were any, they'd be out there.

March 2, 2009, 10:01 PM
thanks i have been doing more research and really cant find anything lately on the internet accept for the same source you just said i"m new to black powder rifles (i've shot black powder wheel guns in 44 cal) i read good reports and some negative and the dates got me to think even more that why would they sell a firearm that would explode in your face thanks again gary

March 2, 2009, 11:04 PM
Info on CVA's new Bergara Barrels from a real Pro

Last night curiosity got the best of me and I uncovered the Rockwell hardness tester to check out the hardness of the Bergara Encore barrels.

"Cheap, Soft Spanish guns" has traditionally sometimes been true, unfortunately, which I can personally vouche for in regard to some I have had such as a Llama 1911 type .45 ACP that had the slide showing signs of stretching after very little use. Likewise, my .45 Firestar shows signs of stretching with only a few Federal +Ps run through it.

Likewise, Taurus handguns from Brazil once had a reputation for being cheaply made, but today it is another story entirely with Taurus putting out superb guns that rival the very best. Frankly, I have picked up several Taurus wheel guns that left me lusting for one myself!

Over the past year and a half doing machine work on Bergara barrels, I have rechambered, cut and crowned, relined, had numerous barrels cut rifle rebored to larger calibers, drilled and tapped, and cut my TBOSS into them.

Their steel machines VERY nicely. Harking back to the days when I did a lot of cut rifling reboring, off the cuff in terms of machineability, I would put the Bergara Encore barrel steel somewhere between early Winchester stainless steel and Ruger's blued, chrome-moly, steel for machining easily and very cleanly.

Cut rifle reboring will tell you more about the machining qualities of barrel steel probably better than any other test. The Bergara barrels I have had rebored recently have cut rifled beautifully!

Internal finishes and the costs to produce those finishes are in part a function of how readily the steel machines and is reflected in the finishes of both the bores and the chambers of the Bergara barrels and their excellent price points.

The point of this Newsletter is this. Has anything by way of barrel hardness (ie, tensile strength) been sacrificed to get these nice finishes at the price we pay for the product?

Drum rollllllll:

Blued steel Bergara Encore barrels Rockwell hardness tested at Rc 25.
Stainless steel Bergara Encore barrels Rockwell hardenss tested Rc 17.
(Their Encore muzzle loader barrels are made from the same steel as their rifle barrels.)

How does this compare with other high power rifle barrels?

Quick summary of checks I have made over the years:

Older vintages of military Mauser barrels and early 1903 Springfield .30/06 manganese steel barrels around Rc 10.

Later Springfield .30/06 barrels made from what P.O. Ackley said was "WD4140," WD meaning "War Department", was around Rc17, the average hardness of "normalized," ie, air cooled 4140 steel.

The majority of commercial barrels from Winchester, Remington, Ruger, etc. tested around Rc 24-26, while at the time I tested them, the Savage 110 barrels were right up there at around Rc 30-32.

Shilen barrels at the time were Rc 19 while Douglas was around Rc 25.

Current Shilen barrels run around Rc 29-30.

Most 416 stainless rifle barrels are around Rc 20, +/-.

As you can see, barrel steel hardnesses range all over the planet, over the entire hardness range from dead soft annealed up through about Rc 32, the upper end of the hardness range that still readily permits the types of machining operations involved in making barrels.

Bottom line:
The Bergara Encore barrels made in Bergara, Spain are right where they need to be for hardness, which determines in large part the tensile strength of the steel.

"Soft Spanish guns" does not apply here!

Another plus for Bergara barrels!

Mike Bellm

cva's barrels in the past did not have a problem blowing up, they had a problem with breech plugs blowing OUT Thats on the 1995-1996 models only.

Ask randy about the savage muzzleloaders that first came out with bad breech plugs and were blowing apart. Toby Bridges would know.

March 4, 2009, 09:57 AM
heres what CVA sent me its long but good info


Thanks for taking the time to write. The Kodiak Pro rifles have a Bergara Barrel that is manufactured in our factory in Bergara Spain (see www.bergarabarrels.com ). Bergara Barrels is one of the fastest growing, and certainly one of the most technically advanced barrel making facilitiies in the world.

I am sure you are reading the “opinions” of Randy Wakeman. Randy is certainly a talented and persuasive writer. But unfortunately he is a little misguided. His online articles are packed with untruths, half-truths and misleading statements designed to turn shooters away from CVA products. I think if you go back and read these articles again with an open mind you will see that this guy is on some sort of vendetta and has really gone off the deep end in his hatred of our company. Why??? I don’t know, I wish I did. O’Neil Williams, the host of the popular hunting and fishing show Outside with O’Neil Williams, recently forwarded a similar email to our company CEO. Attached is the response. I have sent it to you because this letter explains things pretty well. Please take the time to read it. If, after reading this letter, you still have doubts, please send me your telephone number and I will be happy give you a call. In the mean time I suggest that you do as all of the editors of the major gun magazines are doing….ignore him.

Many regards,

Mark Hendricks

VP of Technical Development

Blackpowder Products, Inc

770-449-4687, ext 115

heres the attachment
From: Dudley McGarity
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 9:28 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: RE: FW: Concerned CVA Hunterbolt owner


Thank you for passing on your viewer’s concerns about the most recent Randy Wakeman web blog. Unfortunately, we have received quite a few inquiries regarding the garbage that this guy posts on the internet. Randy Wakeman is from the Chicago area and apparently makes the bulk of his income performing magic tricks in Chicago bar rooms. From what we know, he has never made any substantial amount of money as a “journalist” – as is evidenced by the fact that, to my knowledge, no respectable gun magazine has ever published anything that he has written. Not surprising really, as these publications are very concerned about maintaining their integrity. This is obviously not a concern of Mr. Wakeman or some of the persons and/or companies that he is, from all appearances, associated with in his smear campaign against BPI and our CVA brand. I am sure, however, that he is a very good magician, as he is obviously very capable of deceiving people in to believing whatever he wants them to believe, as is evidenced by Greg’s email to you. On a side note, you can actually see Mr. Wakeman on You Tube doing his magic tricks. It is really quite funny.

O’Neill, you have been working with us for a long time now, you have visited our factory, and you have shot our guns thousands of times, so I know that I am preaching to the choir on this. However, you may often have to address these types of emails, so I do want to make a few brief points about some of the things Mr. Wakeman says about CVA, BPI, and our manufacturer and owner, Dikar.

• Test Firing -- Mr. Wakeman denigrates us for not test firing every single muzzleloader that we produce. What he fails to mention is that no other major muzzleloading manufacturer test fires all of their guns either -- not T/C, not Knight, not Traditions. So, why does he not call all of them to task also? That is a good question, and one that I do not have an answer for. Are they paying him off? Who knows? Certainly, if Mr. Wakeman feels that all muzzleloaders should be test fired, this is a valid opinion, but singling out CVA alone as a “menace” is ridiculous and dishonest. As of now, industry standards and government regulations in the USA do not require, or even recommend, the proof firing of muzzleloaders prior to sale. In some other countries, such proof firing is required for any gun, center-fire or muzzleloader, to be sold. Any CVA gun (or T/C, or Knight, or Traditions) sold in these countries would by law have to be proof fired before it could be legally sold. Of course, being the master of illusion that he is, Mr. Wakeman does not mention this in his article. Instead, he states only that CVA guns are “illicit and illegal” in several foreign countries.

• CVA Voluntary Recall -- Yes, CVA did have a recall of one design of in-line gun that was made in 1995 and 1996 -- that’s almost 15 years ago! This is no secret. In fact, the recall is still in effect and we mention this in all of our catalogs and on our web page. The necessity for this recall made for some very difficult times for our Company, and indeed for some people who were injured with these guns. However, CVA took full responsibility at that time, and BPI (the current owner of the CVA brand) is continuing the efforts to find all 80,000 of these guns. So far, about 96% have been accounted for. For those who were injured with these guns, CVA or BPI has worked with those persons in good faith and given monetary settlements in the more serious cases. Because we have taken responsibility for these guns, no case involving a recall gun has ever gone to trial.

• Other Gun Failures – Mr. Wakeman makes mention of other (non-recall) CVA guns that have failed. Have there been such accidents? Yes, there have been, just as there have been with T/C guns, Knight guns, and Traditions guns. Muzzleloading can be a very dangerous activity, especially if proper safety precautions are not followed. And, for sure, CVA is more exposed to this kind of thing because we sell from two to ten times more guns than any other manufacturer. We have seen guns fail due to being double loaded, loaded with smokeless powder, short started, shot with the barrel obstructed, etc., etc.,. You name it, we have seen it. These types of accidents can, and do, happen with all brands of muzzleloaders, but, for some reason, Mr. Wakeman only writes about those that happen with a CVA. Only in one case am I aware of Mr. Wakeman writing about any accident involving a muzzleloader other than a CVA. The accident occurred with a Savage muzzleloader (and Mr. Wakeman just happens to be on Savage’s payroll). Anyway, a famous muzzleloading expert and writer by the name of Toby Bridges had an accident with a Savage. Unlike his positions when a CVA gun is involved, Mr. Wakeman implied that Toby Bridges misused the gun -- which he possibly could have, but such latitude is never afforded to CVA by Mr. Wakeman.

That’s just three, O’Neill. I could go on and on, but I am not sure that your computer could handle the volume if I were to defend BPI/CVA against every false accusation that Mr. Wakeman has made against us. Why does he do it? Well, it could be that Savage (a competitor of CVA) encourages him to defame us. Many of our competitors are very frustrated in their attempts to compete with CVA, as we have been the number one selling brand of muzzleloader for almost a decade now. I hope, however, that this is not true, as Savage is a very well respected company within our industry. However, that being said, I cannot understand why Savage, or its president, Ron Coburn, would associate themselves either directly or indirectly with this kind of trash. Another explanation could be that Mr. Wakeman is getting paid in some way by the lawyers that he recommends to persons who have had accidents with CVA guns. From all appearances, he is a “rainmaker” for this one particular law firm, so generating business for them by whipping up all of this stuff on the internet may well indeed be another source of income for this self proclaimed gun expert. Or, does he just carry out vendettas for this law firm? He seems pretty tight with them, and they are the only law firm that has ever taken BPI/Dikar/CVA to trial – a case that they lost by unanimous verdict.

In the end, who knows what motivates Mr. Wakeman to pursue so voraciously his “internet terrorism” of our Company. O’Neill, you have been a great friend to CVA for many years. You and I both have shot these guns together. I started with the Company right about the time that the problem with the recall guns began. Since that time, I and my employees have worked very hard to rebuild the CVA brand, and we have done so, making it the number one muzzleloading brand in the USA. Over the past 14 years I have tested each model personally. I have shot our CVA guns thousands of times. Our employees and our families shoot them. You shoot them on TV. We sponsor shoots with consumers, Boy Scouts, Bass Pro, Cabela’s, gun writers, etc., etc., -- and never, not even once, has a CVA gun failed in any of these activities.

Sorry to go on for so long, O’Neill, but this situation really bothers me. Not that I am all that mad, but more so just disappointed. Disappointed that anyone could stoop as low as Mr. Wakeman and his associates have done. It says a lot about the culture we live in today, doesn’t it? I guess the internet has become the “National Enquirer” of the modern age -- a place where anyone can say anything about anyone, no matter how false or misleading, and then claim that it is all protected by “freedom of speech.” The internet is indeed the refuge of last resort for Mr. Wakeman and his lot, unencumbered by editors, fact checkers, or any sense of journalistic integrity.

Best regards,

Dudley McGarity


1-800-320-8767 Ext 107
Fax 770-242-8546

From: ONeill Williams [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 7:18 PM

March 6, 2009, 08:53 PM
I have an old CVA Kentucky. Old meaning about 23 years old. I also own several other flints and cappers. I have not had any problems with any of them at full charges, ball and mini's. I think most people today think muzzle loading is where you put a 209 in the breach with a little plastic thingy, that also contains solidified powder. Muzzle loading to me is cap or flint, powder, patch, ball and pack with a rod.

As for made outside of the states: If it is from Italy, Germany or CZ buy it with confidence. If it was made elswhere, be cautious.

March 20, 2009, 04:30 AM
If either Mr. Hendricks or Mr. McGarity would grant permission for their sworn depositions to be posted here, I can certainly try to help with that.

As far as http://randywakeman.com/Muzzleloading_Tragedy_CVA_Menace.htm BPI / DIKAR / CVA Mr. Hendricks, and Mr. McGarity have been unable to show that anything in this article is anything less than truthful.

Is anything that Erik Zenger reported untruthful?

On December 8, 2008, I received an unsolicited e-mail from eye-witness Erik Zenger, which states in part:


I am currently sitting in a courthouse in Des Moines, Iowa listening to the CVA attorneys trying to defend the safety of their guns. I am sick to my stomach over the blatant lies and disregard for human life and safety. It has come to my attention that it is not just tens of people hurt by their guns like they had told me-- but its like 300 or more.....the most recent was filed in federal court on November 10. Apparently the guy lost an eye and suffered brain damage.

Something has to be done. There needs to be national attention brought to this issue...how can we do this? Please let me know what we can do.
Further, on December 9, 2008, Erik Zenger reported:
"What I heard yesterday was this.....

1) 1 out of every 25 barrels is tested with a go - no go tool to see if the threads for the breach plug are the right size....thats a mere 4%.

2) Every gun that leaves the factory for the USA has a proof stamp on it, even though they have not been to the proof house. The Dikar guy said that they have no documentation from the proof house authorizing them to do this, he had just been told by "someone" at Dikar (he could not remember who it was) to just go ahead and put a proof mark on each barrel. If a Dikar barrel is to be sold in Europe (which they have not been for about 4 years) they ALL need to go through proof testing.

3) 4 barrels a month are sent to the proof house to be pressure tested. They fire the barrel with a load that is equal to 2 times that which is recommended. These are not randomly selected barrels they just grab 4 consecutive out of a batch. And that is 4 total for all the different barrels they make."

How is it that putting PROOF MARKS on barrels that have never been fired, as Erik Zenger has reported above, without any authority from any proof house to do so (also as reported by Erik Zenger) is not total misrepresentation and fraud?

I'm interested in a straight answer to that one. Has ANY CVA gun EVER sold EVER been proof-tested or even so much as fired with a standard working load prior to sale? Any of them?

Do you have any idea where your barrels actually come from before you machine them? Do you even know what specific material they are made from? Have you ever tested them with the very loads you recommend? How is it that a "three pellet 150 grain equivalent load" is okay, but 100 grains of loose powder is "MAX"?

Aren't you aware that Toby Bridges has been a very loud critic of CVA, calling BPI exhibiting a total disregard for consumer safety? Doc White? Erik Brooker? Hodgdon Powder? The CIP? Aren't you aware of the CIP's stance that what you are doing is "completely unacceptable"?

Don't you remember the injuries to Erik Zenger suffered from a CVA inline, Jimmy Dial was injured by a CVA inline, Troy Cashdollar was injured by a CVA inline, Eliot Best was injured by a CVA inline, Mark Kohn was injured by a CVA inline?

H. P. White, the most reputable independent firearms ballistic lab in the United States, had a lot to say about CVA. Don't you remember?

I can help refresh your memories if you'd like.

March 20, 2009, 02:59 PM
now i see what your talking about but i have a few question to ask
1 was this a recall rifle?
2 what kind of load was he using? (min or max )
3 what kind of powder Smokeless or black powder?
4 could it be shooters error Dbl charge short seating ?
thank you

March 20, 2009, 08:37 PM
Does Savage,knight, TC, NEF, Remington (Traditions) test EVERY barrel they sell?

If CVA was so unsafe, you would not be doing reviews on them.

Anything to say about the Bergara barrel?

March 20, 2009, 10:04 PM
Anyone who thinks that CVA,:barf:Traditions,:barf:Lyman :barf:and the Cabelas "Hawken":barf: are good rifles need to spend some time looking at the really good ones.I do not consider Pedersoli a "good one"but alot better than the previous mentions and safe.Pedersoli uses good steel only in their barrels, locks, thimbles trigger guards always feel "cheap".T/C is a decent rifle and certainly safe.
I do not understand folks who will spend a $1000.00 on a C/F rifle but will only spend $200.00 for a M/L you get what you pay for especially when it's made off shore.A good M/L will cost as much as a good production American C/F rifle without going to a custom.Unfortunately we do not have any American CO.'s
building really good M/L's (traditional rifles)There is a reason that you do not see many used Browning M/L's in the for sale columnThe folks who have have them recognize quality and they were never as expensive as their C/F rifles.

March 21, 2009, 05:09 AM
Don't you remember the injuries to Erik Zenger suffered from a CVA inline, Jimmy Dial was injured by a CVA inline, Troy Cashdollar was injured by a CVA inline, Eliot Best was injured by a CVA inline, Mark Kohn was injured by a CVA inline?

Those injuries, I take it, are a matter of record. For comparison's sake, where are and what are the citations for injuries suffered by shooters using other brands of Mlers? How do these compare proportionately to the CVA citations in terms of injuries per number of firearms sold?
Without such information, the citations about CVA are relatively useless.

March 21, 2009, 09:34 AM

One person's crusade, for whatever reason. Where are these hundreds of people?

I've seen more photos of Smith & Wesson revolvers and even a Ruger revolver having been blown up than I have ever seen of muzzleloaders.

I've seen photos of centerfire rifles with burst barrels.

Each time, it was due to double loads, or other operator error (reloads with wrong powder, things in barrels, etc...) with the exception of a recent photo of a barrel blown away at the frame.

That translates to shooter error, not gun-maker error.

I'm a lawyer, and I do not like it that lawyers have assisted in getting the gun locks on guns (stupid answer for stupid people) or tight medicine lids (knee-jerk reaction to stupid parents, people and kids), warning labels on coffee cups (oh it's hot, really?) or medical costs to skyrocket because a handful of people had heart attacks when taking a medicine that helps millions of people, etc...

I read through this thread and I have yet to see something definative here. As a prosecutor, I used to tell the cops who would tell me that somebody was a criminal, "fine, get the evidence, until then, no charges".

Wakeman, evidence please, that it was the manufacturers fault. That means metalurgical tests, definitive proof it was not operator error, and that the fault solely rests with the manufacturer.

Personally, I don't care about CVA, Traditions, Knight, or any other manufacturer. I want to have fun with guns and fun in the forums (meaning learning REAL things, entertainment, and relaxation). Seeing a thread entitled
"Are we buying bombs?" fulfills none of those things I am looking for in these threads.

Evidence, or shut up, :mad: please :).

The Doc is out now and shaking his head. :cool:

March 21, 2009, 04:37 PM
Fact is CVA has been selling cheap muzzle loading guns since the 70 `s and selling more guns than others too .. and selling to more inexperienced first time shooters than all the better made gun companys .T/C for one . So i figure with this many guns in the hands of the most inexperienced there`s probally been the most mistakes made such as heavy loaded short started loads maybe even some with smokeless powders ...
-- Sundance44s

Alas, I must respectfully disagree with you, Sundance.
I have a CVA Mountain Rifle, .50-caliber, I purchased new about 1981. Its browned barrel is stamped, MADE IN USA.
It is a well-made and accurate rifle -- just as well made in 1981 as the Thompson Centers.
So, to accuse CVA of selling junk "since the 70 ' s" is untrue.
In fact, I recall that I paid more for this CVA than a Thompson Center because its steel was browned and all furniture was steel, pewter or German silver.
I went with the CVA because it looked like an original gun and lacked the garish, cheap-to-machine brass and modern sights that Thompson Center put on its rifles.
With a proper load of black powder or Pyrodex, the CVA or Thompson Center rifle of 1981 was entirely safe.
Alas, I do agree that at some point CVA began having its barrels made in Spain, and quality suffered greatly. CVA rifles bearing the MADE IN USA stamp on their barrel command much higher prices than those made in Spain, for good reason.

Sorry. Not to be a pain in the neck, but I had to respond to your blanket statement that CVA has made nothing but junk since the 1970s.

Also stamped on my CVA barrel is BLACK POWDER ONLY. If someone throws smokeless powder down their barrel, it's their fault. Not the fault of the gun.maker.

As for more folks learning black powder by buying a CVA, I rather doubt this. Thompson Center predates CVA by a number of years. As I recall, T/C came out with its black powder rifles in the late 1960s. CVA came out with their rifles in the mid 1970s.
Thompson Center rifles were, and remain, enormously popular from the beginning. When I met black powder shooters in the 1970s and 1980s, they almost always had a T/C rifle. There was a smattering of Hopkins & Allen and an occasional Lyman, but T/C seemed to rule the roost.

I never saw a blown-up CVA, T/C, Hopkins & Allen or Lyman but I'm sure plenty were blown by folks who were ignorant of their needs.
Back in the 1960s and 1970s, there were few books on black powder. Lyman led the pack, followed by a little booklet that T/C put out. The internet didn't exist, so you couldn't easily get access to factory information or the experience of others.
Though DuPont manufacted black powder, I don't recall it once publishing a manual on how to use its product in various firearms. Its entire booklet was dedicated to the smokeless powders it produced.

There was an incredible amount of incorrect and downright dangerous information coming from the lips of other shooters in the 1960s on up to the 1980s. There still is, but most of today's shooters are better informed.
I recall "back in the day" that know-it-alls were advising folks to load a little smokeless powder in their black powder rifles and revolvers for cleaner burning! :eek: There are still morons out there advising this.
Folks were loading two patched balls, or even two conical bullets, down large charges of black powder for their "bear load" and giving a knowing wink to newcomers. God knows how many guns blew at this practice.

At what point CVA's quality changed for the worse I don't know. I suspect it was in the late 80s or early 90s, as it seems that rifles from these eras obviously lack the qualify of the one I bought in 1981.

In today's litigious society, I take with a bag of salt any lawsuit claiming manufacturer negligence. Lawsuits have become the "Redneck Lottery" today. If CVA guns have blown with crippling or deadly effect, I'd more likely suspect the loading practices of the shooter than the gun.

On a final note, I don't recall hearing of many guns blowing until the advent of propellant pellets, sabots, jacketed bullets, black powder substitutes, 209 primers and the like. I believe that these features encourage people to "push the envelope" and enter the Realm of Dangerous Practices.

In simpler times, when folks used black powder, lead balls, patches, greased lead bullets and percussion caps muzzleloading was much safer.
Today, the proliferation of "modern advances" has obscured what is, and is not, a safe practice.
And a pox on Savage for marketing a muzzleloading rifle that uses smokeless powder! God knows how many rifles have been damaged or destroyed because someone used the wrong smokeless powder in their Savage, or thought that since the Savage could take it, their rifle could too.

Perhaps the muzzleloading hobby is a process of Darwinism at work.

I hope you don't take my observations as a personal attack, Sundance. I admire and respect your knowledge and I've often profited from it, but felt I should respond to your blanket statement about CVAs.
So many newer shooters out there may not recall the day when CVA made high-quality firearms.

March 21, 2009, 05:23 PM
I see Randy was forced to come out a whole two posts a year for 4 years quite active

March 21, 2009, 05:37 PM
This is quite typical of Mr. Wakeman. He posts, or writes, a long rant against CVA (only - no other company is ever attacked by him) alleging many failures and 'naming names', all with an air of fact. But he never, and I repeat, NEVER, answers the requests for documentation or details - he just disappears. He just has no credibility; it would be so easy to do - all he'd have to do is provide the documentation and he'd be a hero. I've come to believe there is no substance to his claims, because there is no verifiable basis to them.

March 21, 2009, 06:52 PM
Anyone that calls my .58cal cva mountain rifle cheap- Gonna get pimp slapped :cool:

I just picked up a CVA Hawken .54cal made in 1996. The color i dont like but she lays tight groups!

March 21, 2009, 08:56 PM
CVA:barf: cheap,cheap,cheap,cheap,cheap,cheap,cheap,cheap.cheap.
Bring your lunch cowboy you're gonna need it.

March 22, 2009, 08:42 PM
I ain't skeert of no CVA.:D I had my Investarms .50 rebarreled to .54 with a modified CVA barrel. Anybody says they're no good or dangerous doesn't know what they're talking about and can go pee up a rope. And just for the record Toby Bridges is the worst thing to happen to traditional muzzleloading to ever come down the pike.

March 23, 2009, 08:23 AM
Started a new thread so I won't be guilty of jacking this one.

Mr Odd Six
March 23, 2009, 11:06 AM
Ill even go as far as saying 90% of ALL production guns are cheap crap.

Compared to semi and custom rifles, you build yourself.

The mere quality of American made parts, let alone the craftsmanship.

Ive been shooting BP for decades, and have not shot a production gun in 20 years, let alone owned one.

CVA is the bottom of the barrel. Unless you can find a Hipower, which is a jap CVA copy.

O might shoot a Shilo Sharps, or Parker-Hale rifle, if one could be found.
Other than that, I dont let friends buy import production guns.

It would have to be a left handed rifle and I would really prefer a flintlock.

Jim makes left handed kits


March 23, 2009, 11:22 AM
Ive been shooting BP for decades, and have not shot a production gun in 20 years, let alone owned one.

Then how in the world would you know what today's guns are like? I've been shooting since I was 18, and am 53 now (though I wish I was still younger! :D) . I have only seen the quality rise on most all guns. While there is some crud out there, it is the case in life that there will always be some crud out there.

My Uberti's are pretty much flawless, my Ruger's the same, my Savage Model 11 is great, my DPMS/Doublestar AR is super, and I could go on and on.

A statement about guns being bad and then not having shot or owned a production gun for 20 years is what is called in my business 'impeachable', which means not worth the time that it took to write it. Sorry, but that just does not hold water, or as Abe Lincoln said, 'That plow won't scour".

The Doc is out now. :cool:

March 25, 2009, 11:04 PM
T/C Omega has a safe barrel... somehow I happen to know that 150 grains of Triple 7, the hottest ML substitute with a 250 sabot and a good chunk of a broken brass ramroad on top of it didn't do much other than a brutal recoil. Oh, yes it damaged the Nikon scope on top of it...

March 26, 2009, 06:11 AM
T/C Omega has a safe barrel... somehow I happen to know that 150 grains of Triple 7, the hottest ML substitute with a 250 sabot and a good chunk of a broken brass ramroad on top of it didn't do much other than a brutal recoil. Oh, yes it damaged the Nikon scope on top of it...

Your single incident simply says you may have been very lucky. In no way does one event prove the entire population of T/C Omegas are resilient to such abuse.

March 26, 2009, 07:51 AM
Has anyone shot over a cronograph to see what MV those 250gr bullets over 150gr of T7 are producing?

March 26, 2009, 05:15 PM
Hi there, long time reader and I finally registered.

In regards the the Randy Wakeman articles, I personally think it is clear he has a personal vendetta against CVA for some reason. If you believe what he writes then don't buy one. I believe they are decent rifles for the price. Are they as nice as a T/C or a Knight? No. But then again they are not as much money either. They are decent guns if you are not looking to spend as much money or just getting into the sport.

One other thing on Randy Wakeman, he also wrote an article you can find on google regarding Powerbelt Bullets. Powerbelt carries the CVA name as you are probably aware however they are not manufactured in Spain. In fact they are manufactured in the great state of Idaho. He rips these bullets to pieces just as he does the CVA rifles. And there is nobody on this planet that will convince me those bullets are junk. In fact many many fellow hunters I know it's all they use. It is clear he is out to trash CVA.

March 29, 2009, 08:14 AM
Let me jump in here as a muzzleloader builder & gunsmith along with my 29 years of burning black powder in both ML's and cartridge guns.

I've replied to many such of these posts and it's the same old BS all the time, nothing is ever new and the facts are twisted and clouded by personal vendetta often times with a financial motive.

In all the years that I've been assembling mass-production kits and repairing factory-built mass-production guns, it does not take long for patterns to establish themselves and by far the most prevalent safety issues with the commonly known name brands are associated with the locks, triggers and cylinder mechanisms on C&B revolvers. Some of the generics, those with no or a little known name, come from Italy, Spain & Brazil and are of equal and sometimes higher quality than the commonly known name brand mass-production guns.

The major barrel safety issues are associated with those coming from the middle and far east region. Some examples are barrels made from poorly manufactured tubing that is not intended to be used for gun barrels or much of anything else for that matter. Breechplugs that are improperly made and some secured by nothing more than junk solder or braze, no threads. Revolvers that come out of the box with a .44cal cylinder and a .36cal barrel and so forth. These are the excessively dangerous guns!

Yes, I have seen many guns, both mass-production and custom/semi-custom that suffered catastrophic barrel failures and the majority of those failures are attributed to improper operation and/or improper maintenance/repair. Just the same as you cannot fault Dodge because you ran into a tree while playing with your ipod, you cannot fault a manufacturer because some idiot short-started or charged the bore with smokeless powder!

I started in black powder with a CVA Kentucky flintlock and over the years I have owned and worked on numerous mass-production guns. The highest quality and best shooting production gun I ever had was a no-name generic long rifle made in Italy. The lowest quality and most dangerous was a Pedersoli Kodiak and the same very dangerous sear/tumbler manufacturing issues have been seen in numerous other Pedersoli sidelocks too. My best overall quality praise for a mass-production gun goes to Lyman.

First off, nothing mechanical is immune to failure and the ultimate responsibility for safety lies with the user - thus is why we stress the point that the muzzle is ALWAYS pointed in a safe direction. I don't care if it's the latest wiz-bang loudenboomer mega-magnum bolt action or an original 1759 flintlock, either one can suffer an unexpected mechanical failure just the same as either one can be destroyed by an operator who is ignorant as to the proper operation or an idiot who intentionally creates a problem. On the flip-side you have those problems that result from lack of workmanship/quality control such as in the case of the Pedersoli locks being made with insufficient/incorrect sear/tumbler engagement and the middle/far east guns intentionally made incorrectly and/or with known dangerous materials.

One is only left to question why Mr. Wakeman singles out CVA when there are truly dangerous guns coming from the middle & far east and still being sold today?

I'm not endorsing CVA by any means but if we're going to talk about safety issues, let's apply the standards fairly and assign the points of importance where they belong. You want to worry about dangerous barrels ... Worry about the barrel bombs coming from the middle and far east regions or those who think a barrel can be made from hydraulic tubing that cannot handle the shock-loading associated with gun barrel applications. Worry about a little speck of rust causing the sear plunger to bind in the T/C locks resulting in the sear failing to engage the tumbler. Worry about your Pedersoli not having a properly formed sear/tumbler. Worry about the ignorant or idiots who go on the internet and read about some moron who claims it's safe to use "a little smokeless with the black powder". Worry about the "bubba gunsmiths" and the modern gunsmiths who are ignorant to the particulars of proper muzzleloader gunsmithing.

Let's be fair here and also apply some common sense. CVA guns are far from "top shelf" and I am by no means endorsing them but don't you think that if they suffered the numerous barrel failures as Mr. Wakeman is alluding, wouldn't CVA have long-since been bankrupt by law suits?

Why does Mr. Wakeman not make such a fuss over the numerous Remington 1100 receivers that broke or the Remington shotgun barrels that split or any of the other problems encountered by chance or design by other mass-production manufacturers?

If you want a top quality gun, you've got to look at something other than a mass-production gun. I don't care what brand it is, mass-production means everything is built to time and a selling price so there is a lot of compromise going on. Also keep in mind that not every custom/semi-custom gun-builder/gunsmith uses top quality parts or does professional quality work either. Additionally you must never ignore the fact that no matter how much time, effort or money is spent trying to obtain the highest quality parts, they are not immune to unforeseen failure nor will they protect you from stupidity.

Mr Odd Six
March 29, 2009, 12:45 PM
FL You are a hard act to follow

you are 100% correct.

The flatlanders have no concept of how different a black powder firearm is to a smokeless.

Doc Law,

Im at rondies several times a month, and shoot around production guns all the time.

I dont need to be that close to them, to see they are the same junk they have been, always.

A $600 semi-custom hand built rifle, will be made of better grade parts than any $1000 production gun.

Come by the homestead and fire my flinter a couple 100 times flawlessly.


March 29, 2009, 01:28 PM
I dont need to be that close to them, to see they are the same junk they have been, always.

I wouldn't go that far. None of them are period correct but calling them junk is uncalled for.

March 29, 2009, 02:28 PM
I'm with you, Hawg. I'm always amazed by people who admit they don't use the guns, haven't even handled them, but can tell from miles away how bad they are. They just don't realize how stupid that makes them look. Everybody's entitled to have an opinion, and to state it, but it should be based on some real experience with the item being discussed.

Oh, and good luck finding a $600 semi-custom, whatever that is.

Mr Odd Six
March 29, 2009, 04:12 PM
See the picture above $672 from MLS.

WHen you witness misfires, malfunctions, and folks leaving because their store boughts fail, you dont have to join in thier misery to understand it.

If your once a year hunters, then you can work with the cheap junk.

I prefer to avoid the hassle

March 29, 2009, 05:07 PM
You got your gun from the real estate Multiple Listing Service? I'm beginning to understand.

March 29, 2009, 05:51 PM
WHen you witness misfires, malfunctions, and folks leaving because their store boughts fail, you dont have to join in thier misery to understand it.

Probably because they didn't know the correct procedures for using a muzzleloader in the first place. All I've ever had have been store boughts and the only problems I've had other than the occasional bad cap have been my fault not the guns. BTW, there is no such thing s a semi custom. It's either custom or it isn't.

March 29, 2009, 06:17 PM
doesnt help either when the Dip behind the counter justs picks things out for the buyer just so he can make a good sale for the day.

March 29, 2009, 09:38 PM
I was going to be a smart-a$$ and say something about semi-custom guns must be the ones without good wood to metal fit (front of the lockplate) or screws protruding past the lockplate (behind the hammer) and not having a particularly good finish, but then I thought better of it. :D

So I will stick with my production guns that outside of a crud ASM .36 Navy I once had and gleefully got rid of, I have actually fired, used, and have not failed. :rolleyes:

The Doc is out now. :cool:

Mr Odd Six
March 30, 2009, 12:14 AM
Muzzleloader Supply in Ozark AK.

But I thought you guys knew where to get the good stuff at

Probably because they didn't know the correct procedures for using a muzzleloader in the first place.

Yup mostly firest or second year flatlanders. The seasoned guys sell them thier production starter guns.

occasional bad cap have been my fault not the guns.

Then the caps must be in real sad shape. The fun of MLing is to learn to fire in all weather, and all year round. I gave up on cap guns in the 70s.

BTW, there is no such thing s a semi custom. It's either custom or it isn't.

A term used on the flintlock forums boards.

You can get a kit gun form Jim Chambers or MLS, and have a degree of the work done for you. This is considered a semi-custom, some call them kit guns, but then they are confused with production guns sold in the white.

Buying the raw wood, and parts and making the enitre thing from scratch is custom.

But we need not burden oursleves with jargen.

March 30, 2009, 03:35 AM
Yup mostly firest or second year flatlanders. The seasoned guys sell them thier production starter guns.

Then why berate the guns when it's the shooters fault? Aside from the sights(which are easily fixed)I've never had a real problem I didn't cause myself with my Investarms Hawken I bought back in the 80's.

Then the caps must be in real sad shape. The fun of MLing is to learn to fire in all weather, and all year round. I gave up on cap guns in the 70s.

Remington caps after they've been rattled around for a few years sometimes lose the foil. I don't like Remington caps but bought a bunch of them on sale several years years ago. When I get low on CCI's I start using the Remingtons and sometimes forget to check. I've never had a bad CCI cap that I can remember. I hunt in all kinds of weather except snow and that's cuz we don't get much of it. I have no problems shooting in the rain but I'm not going to do it just to be doin it. I'd like to have a flinter but I can't get real bp locally and can't afford to buy enough to get it online

March 30, 2009, 07:04 AM
Muzzleloader Supply in Ozark AK.

Hmmm. Never been to Ozark, Alaska. Wonder where that is? I have to admit, if they have 'the good stuff', I've sure missed it.

I do know about Susanne's Muzzleloader Builders Supply in Ozone, Arkansas. But that would be MBS, not MLS. Probably not the same place.

Next time I get up north I'll have to see if I can find it.

March 30, 2009, 07:56 AM

It seems there is a difference of opinion on this one... I consider a "semi-custom" a hand-built gun using all high-quality parts but it is not built for one specific person. A "custom" is where the gun is hand-built to the customer's specifications. In other words, if I build a flintlock rifle the way I want and put it up for sale, it's a "semi-custom" - if someone orders a specific gun for them, then it is a "custom" because it's made for that one user. If it's a high-quality "kit" gun, it's still a "kit gun" because it is not completely hand-built even though it may be meticulously assembled with the utmost in craftsmanship - just because it was a kit doesn't mean anything, just truth in advertising.

I differ somewhat from other custom/semi-custom/kit assemblers in that I don't fault anyone from buying what they want - I just try to point out the differences and concerns then let the individual decide what they want to do. That's why I make the statement, based on my years of experience not only building my own guns but after assembling, tuning and repairing a pile of mass-production guns, Lyman is the best in overall consistent quality even if they are not "PC". I happen to have a Lyman Deerstalker I took in trade, not PC by any means but after I tuned the lock and lapped the bore, she's a fine functioning and decent shooting considering the 1:48 twist bore (and is for sale too)

The problem I have is with the el-cheapo's even when the price tag does not reflect the actual quality. This is where people will look at the low price and think they are getting a super deal or where they see a high price and think they are getting a level of quality that reflects the price and then find out that neither thought is correct. There are mass-production guns selling for $600+ and for the lack of any kinder terminology, they're junk. You can't do anything short of trashing the whole thing and starting over from scratch to make them better functioning and in some cases even safe to shoot. In other cases one can spend $650 and buy a half-decent shooting gun that's worth about $300 in actual value. Then there are the scum who knowingly buy dangerous imported crap guns and sell them at ten times what they paid for them to uninformed customers.

I think the customer should be well informed before they do anything - then they can decide if they want to spend, invest or waste their money in whatever way it makes them happy or suits their needs. I have some customers who are pirate reenactors, they have two kinds of guns, el-cheapo's to knocked around and make noise for the public shows and rather expensive custom gun for shooting matches when it's not just for "show".

It's like anything else... you can pay $150,000 for a high-performance good looking Bentley but just you paid $150,000 for a Dodge Colt, don't expect it to be in the same class as the Bentley ... know what you're buying and what you can expect or not expect from it.

April 1, 2009, 03:42 PM
I have never shot an in-line. Never worn wingtip shoes. Never played golf. Hope to make it to the grave able to say the same.

I am a diehard traditionalist muzzleloader. I have never seen a "production" rifle of the beauty of a custom gun, but I have rarely seen a custom gun as affordable as a store-bought.

I have only pointed friends to the Lyman Hawken, or the old Thompson Center Hawken for production guns - the Dixie Tennessee was nice, but they don't make it now, if I understand correctly.

A Lyman can be had in the $400-500 range. You can't purchase the parts for a custom gun for that, and won't come close to purchasing a Chambers kit for that.

I am a ML snob, I've either got ones I have built or ones built for me, 'cepting one I traded for years ago. There is a definite difference in quality between custom and production, and many of the production guns ARE junk. But I started out shooting a TC Hawken, and will never begrudge someone doing the same. But one has to be careful what one picks, a la CVA.

As to loading, my Thompson shoots with 80gr max of 3F (to remain accurate), my 50 I built eats 120 grains of 3F, my 62 wants 140 grains of either 3F or 2F. But the custom guns have premium barrels made of good American steel, and I am not the least afraid of them. AND, I shoot patched roundball, not bullets, so I don't get close to the bullet mass that some of the bullet folks see. I also get less recoil.

I ramble...I would encourage you to drop the inline idea, forget what ANYBODY says about getting 30-06 energy from a black powder rifle, and enjoy the step back in time with a traditionally built sidelock muzzleloader. And, before you get the inline, if you decide to stay with it, check your hunting regs - here in Oregon the ODFW has restricted the use of inlines for ML seasons, and other states have done the same.

April 1, 2009, 05:46 PM
Hard to add much to this thread that hasn't been said, but I have yet to see or hear from anyone who has witnessed a blowup of a "cheap" ML for anything other than operator error.

I do know of a fellow who saw the drum blow out the side of a caplock. Not sure what make it was. He doesn't remember either.

I think the problem stems from people getting unrealistic expectations. Buying into the notion of flat trajectories and such.

I can launch a 585-grain chunk of lead using 60 grs of FFg, plenty of energy to kill a deer at 100 yards humanely. I don't need to go much over 80 grains of powder for anything I can think of. Come to think of it, in smaller caliber ones with much lighter bullets I can't think of any time I needed more than 80 grs powder.

With the old 60 or 65 gr charge of powder used in the War Between the States, there were marskmen who could hit targets beyond 1000 yards. That ain't sniperinky talkin' either.

1000 yards, and you better believe that 500+ grain conical still had a good head of steam behind it. Not that I'd take that shot at a deer, just sayin'.

I for one will take a production gun any day as long as it's a decent shooter. That might be because I'm a redneck, or it might be because I'm thrifty. Not sure which. Prob'ly both. So far I have gotten time in with 4 production ML's and 1 semi-custom and they were all good, but my favorite is one of the productions, a .58 cal. Second favorite is another production, a Lyman Great Plains.

Undoubtedly there are some lemons to be had in the production class. Doesn't deter me production ML's in general though.

April 7, 2009, 12:42 AM

There were probably, at most, 6 firearms and wielders of them who could hit a MAN at 250 yards, let alone at 1000 yards. POSSIBLY them who shot Whitworth's rifles. Fergusons and Halls, were they used, were rare.

MOST arms in the Civil War were smoothbores. If the barn was large enough and they were inside, they could not hit one of those broad sides of the same barn.
Back to Britain and their smoothbore, when the instructions were to hit a man at 200 yards, aim 50 feet over him and hope it falls somewhere close.

I can cite you the reference to that, if you need it. A smoothbore will NOT hit a target beyond 50 yards, with ANY consistency at all. YMMV, but they will not hit a target at will.

In the 4 years of the Civil War, probably 100 million rounds were fired, cannon and musket, and the death toll was about 660,000. There was no accuracy at ALL involved.

WORSE is that in following wars, the rounds per injury actually increased.

I wonder how many rounds have been shot off in Iraq. BILLIONS? At a buck apiece? Probably. Lots of money to be made in WAR.

Ah, geez.



April 7, 2009, 12:52 AM
MOST arms in the Civil War were smoothbores

I dunno where you get your information from but most guns used during the CW were rifled. The two most widely used were U.S. Springfields and British Enfields both capable of making head shots at 500 yds. in the right hands.

Back to Britain and their smoothbore, when the instructions were to hit a man at 200 yards, aim 50 feet over him and hope it falls somewhere close.

I've never heard that before but during the Revolution the Brown Bess didn't even have sights on it.

A smoothbore will NOT hit a target beyond 50 yards, with ANY consistency at all.

Again I dunno where you get your information from but that is total BS.

April 7, 2009, 05:53 AM
I inherited a Thompson Center 50 cal. Plains Rifle- 1980's vintage. It will handle 90-110 grains of BP safely. I load it with 90 grains, which is the standard load for every ML hunter in this area of Pa.- that I know personally. A quality gun like a T-C will not blow up with 90 grains. It's actually way over-built to handle it.

April 7, 2009, 09:07 AM
Odd six - watch it with the "flatlander" comments! Take note of my screen name FL-Flinter ... as in "Florida" which isn't exactly knows for its mountains. :D

I can cite you the reference to that, if you need it. A smoothbore will NOT hit a target beyond 50 yards, with ANY consistency at all. YMMV, but they will not hit a target at will.


I'll bet that reference comes from the same self-proclaimed "experts" who still insist on embracing the lies and myths while totally ignoring the truth. That ranks right up there with - "One shot from a blunderbuss will clear the entire deck of a ship." Apply the truth and you'll quickly understand how utterly stupid that sounds yet the "experts" keep saying it. So ask yourself, just how much shot do you need to launch with one shot to cover an area 30-45 feet wide and 70-150 long - roughly 15 POUNDS of #5 birdshot.... man enough to fire that blunderbuss doesn't need any gun to begin with. Second favorite BS lie is, "They loaded anything in a blunderbuss like nails and rocks." Again, total BS still being presented by alleged "experts" who wouldn't know the truth if it jumped up and bit them in the butt. A blunderbuss was just as expensive as any other gun and those shelling out six months to a year's worth of money on a gun are not going to load it with rocks or nails just the same you wouldn't load up your Browning or Merkel with 8D common's or 1B gravel. Truth is that most blunderbuss guns came with one or two gang molds in which small and/or large size shot pellets were cast from cheap lead. At the time, nails were not easily obtained, they were made one at a time by hand by a blacksmith and extremely expensive, ain't no way they're being wasted and there is no way anyone is tearing up their expensive gun putting rocks down the bore. Even back to the days of the early handgonnes, projectiles were primarily cast from lead with the exception of those made from wood specifically to be used as projectiles. See, the truth just doesn't make for as good of a storyline as the BS does.

My PRB's with smokeless in a 12ga cartridge gun smoothbore would hold 5.5" or better groups all day long at 100yds, that was 3" smaller than what my borther was ever able to get with his fully-rifled barrel 12ga MAGNUM using pistol bullets wrapped in a plastic condoms. A smoothbore flintlock rifle will easily hold 6" groups at 75+yds if the gun is right and the operator knows what he/she is doing.

April 7, 2009, 10:54 AM
Beginning to change the subject here, thankfully, but I will tend to agree with FL-Flinter, since I have seen it done on the History Channel, a smoothbore will hit things at a medium distance. Haven't had a chance to see it in real life yet, but doesn't the NSSA have smoothbore shoots, too? Wouldn't stand to reason that they would if they could not hit anything.

The Doc is out now. :cool:

April 7, 2009, 11:45 AM
Not to mention the smooth rifles that can outshoot actual rifles. And yes, there is something called a "smooth rifle" in the world of black powder, just as there's something called "semi custom."

Stick with real black powder and you'll have nary a problem. Stay traditional and follow the old rules.

April 8, 2009, 12:06 AM
Just started a post and hit SOME key that lost it.


Sure, all the troops on both sides were excellent marksmen. They could put your eye out at 500 yards. BS.

OR, they were green draftees who couldn't shoot worth a damn.



I'll bet that reference comes from the same self-proclaimed "experts" ...."

Actually, my reference is from "The Story of the Guns", dated 1863, about the battle between Whitworth and Armstrong to re-arm Britain, and hence the world.

I don't know if I can copy from the PDF. Here goes.....Nope can't.

Quote:"The soldier was told, in firing at a man at 600 yards, to fire 130 feet above him." "Or in other words, if you wanted to hit a church door, aim at the weathercock", BUT, "considering the lateral deviation, the chances were certainly 2 to 1 that you would miss the church altogether".

These were not the Pennsylvania rifles, nor Kentucky rifles. They were mass produced muskets. .58 calibre, no? NOT 500 yard hit you in the head rifles. And I don't mean those .36 and .40 cal. rifles that woodsmen used.

Here's another citation. I haven't read this one. Ranges are minimal:


Rifled muskets were NOT accurate. You guys are not, for the most part, shooting rifled muskets. Nor are you shooting in battle conditions.

As to that, you are also saying that you will shoot at a deer sized animal at less than a 100 yards, and advising others to do the same. You can't in one breath say that you have a 1,000 yard gun, but you "prefer", possibly because the deer will spoil by the time you trek that far to gut it, to shoot JUST 100 yard shots, so you can get it before it spoils.


Never happen. You're dreaming, or you are thinking of some of the oaters you've watched.

Why, if you guys have such superaccurate BP rifles, do you still brag about your 50 and 100 yard groups? One inch 50's, 4 inch 100's, and if you went to 200, what, 12 or 16 inches?That is with your rifles, today. Off the bench. Swab after shots.

Heat of battle, all fouled, load a ball or bullet and knock a general off his horse at 1,000 yards? A once in a lifetime shot, never to be repeated.
There were accurate rifles in the Civil War. Sharps, Bernards, others, Hall rifles. But the mass of the millions involved were armed with basically punkin ball shooters..

Accuracy was secondary. Further in the link above, it says that target practice was not done. Cost of ammunition.

Though I now shoot almost all BP revolvers, I did shoot long range target grade rifle. 20X scope. Good bench. 100 yds., sub one inch, 200 sub two inch. Had we a 500 yard range, probably could have held about 5 inches.
45 years since I was able to shoot a 500 yard range, at PI with an M-14. Though I liked the M1 better, that sumbitch COULD shoot, if you could hold it.



April 8, 2009, 04:19 AM
I don't have to read the link to know it's all BS. Get you some real history books. My repro Enfield will tear a five gallon bucket all to hell at 300 yds. My original shoots better but I don't shoot it much. As for target practice during the war they did. I've dug a lot of bullets out of Rocky Face Ridge in Georgia where they had informal matches in 1863(Confederate troops). I too have super accurate modern rifles but that's not the same thing. You did stumble across one valid point "heat of battle" That right there is the main reason for the high number of rounds fired then and now. Nobody wants to stick their head up long enough to take aimed shots and risk it getting blown apart

April 8, 2009, 06:46 AM

I'm not saying all or even "most" of the troops were marksmen, what I'm saying is that to claim smoothbores are useless beyond 50 yards is total BS.

First off, a round ball does not need spin to stabilize, in a perfect world the ball is a true sphere and will fly straight because there is nothing to make it not fly straight. No, we don't live in a perfect world and castings are not true spheres and there are voids, slag, mold lines and of course the sprue to deal with. All those aside, a reasonable quality cast RB will still fly reasonably straight despite "minor" flaws.

As for the effectiveness in battle, there are several things being lumped into one here and with no disrespect intended, I'll try to clear things up a little.

I don't have the British standards for accuracy on their smoothbore muskets right handy but IIRC they required an 70% hit rate at 150yds ... besides the point, the key things to note are that the shooting is done by someone familiar with the gun and using "other than" field ammunition. Those points are important because not everyone was given sufficient live-fire training prior to being put into battle and because the guy shooting on the range wasn't using the same ammo as the guys in the field.

Using field ammo (smaller than normal diameter ball in a paper cartridge) an average quality smoothbore musket fired by someone familiar with the gun and load could be expected to maintain about 60% accuracy on a man-size target at 100 yards. When allowed to use better quality ammo, the same gun and shooter was easily able to meet or exceed the 70% @ 150yds standard. However, one must understand it's pretty much apples & oranges in the general sense but one cannot discount the fact that it would not be impossible for at the first shot in a battle to be placed fairly accurate and deadly to at least 150yds given the use of good ammo.

Another thing that kind gets blown out of proportion is the effectiveness of the large caliber round balls. I recall reading one account claiming something to the effect that "the 0.75 ball was ineffective beyond 75 yards because it was too-big and heavy and slowed too much." Anyone with even a passing knowledge of ballistics knows that the heavier the projectile is, the less velocity it needs to be deadly. Considering the fact that even the under-sized musket balls weighed in around 600 grains and even at a mere 500 fps, it still delivers 333 ft-lbs of energy, more than enough to be fatal or knock a limb off. As for the drop-correction, IIRC it was 60yds or less aim for the belt buckle; 60yds or more aim for the top of the head; this would put the ball somewhere in the torso out to 150yds.

When it comes to the fighting itself, there is a considerably amount of warfare techniques that were either unknown or disregarded by the western Europeans. Even back to the days of Sun Wu & Sun Tzu around 512BC in China, military tactics were employed that were greatly advanced from the European methods of suffering great losses by having lines of men stand in an open field blasting or hacking the snot out of each other with no rhyme nor reason for such stupidity. Over a thousand years after the Roman empire collapsed, the Brits & French maintained the same military theories with guns as the Romans did with archers - using them primarily as artillery rather than effective personal fighting weapons. The effectiveness failures associated with deploying archers that were not only identified but corrected and written about by Sun Tzu and again later by Sun Pin were still being repeated more than 2000 years later by the western Europeans now using muskets.

Take into consideration that when the lines came into bearing (marched by their commanders to within 50 - 60 yards of each other) they stood there and were expected to fire three to six volleys before breaking into retreat. Even 850 years earlier, it is well documented that the north east Europeans and on along the northern region out through Mongolia employed military tactics that were highly advanced compared to those being taught by the Brits & French. Archers were deployed in mass using chariots and in conjunction with both cavalry and supporting infantry. While the archers made the first strikes, their initial shots were made as accurately as possible and designed to take out specific enemy targets, the leaders and the strongest warriors were the primary first-choice targets. Once the first volley of arrows were loosed, the cavalry began their attack from the flanks while the archers continued their frontal assault buying just a little more time for the chariots to make the first delivery of infantry into the midst of the enemy's ranks.

Without the application of effective military tactics, the Brits and American's lumbered on like fools standing in lines and lobbing lead balls at each other with no clear leadership nor objectives. The entire combination is what lead to the muskets being seen pretty much as "ineffective" yet the problems were not with the musket but rather with the mindset of the leaders. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that letting the bulk of your men get cut down because they're standing still trying to reload is utter stupidity. Had the same methods been used that were proven more than two thousand years prior, the war would have over rather quickly.

I know this reply got a little off the topic at hand but it is necessary to understand that while the particular weapons may not have been considered "premium" the military tactics and leadership deserve the blame and not the guns themselves. The mis-application of blame rests upon those commentary writers who have neither a working knowledge of guns nor those military tactics that were proven effective and those that were proven ineffective. More often than not the Romans are held up as the standard even though their deployment of weapons was greatly inferior to their deployment of engineers. Yes, the Romans deserve credit for their engineering and construction capabilities but they deserve equal condemnation for their lack of properly deploying offensive weapons. The Romans used archers solely as artillery and artillery solely for the purpose of breeching walls despite the fact that centuries earlier archers were correctly deployed as making the initial direct attack and without delay that was immediately followed up on by infantry, cavalry and chariot attacks designed to break the mass of the enemy. Only after the initial direct archer attack was complete did they resort to directing their fire deeper into the enemy lines beyond their advancing troops as an artillery type support. On the other hand, the Romans rarely, if ever, used their archers for a frontal assault but rather chose to have them lob their arrows as an un-aimed artillery barrage; the result being long protracted battles and very high infantry loss rates. Applying the same ill-founded logic, one would have to conclude that the Roman weapons were deficient just as the claim is made that the musket is deficient when neither is correct. The deficiencies lied with the leadership and not with the weapons.

April 8, 2009, 07:27 AM
I just read part of that book from the link. Here is a quote,

"Armed with Colt's seven-shooter navy self-cocking .44-calibre..."

That is on page 157. Something, oh, call it common sense, tells me that something is ever so slightly wrong with the expert's research not to catch that something was wrong with that statement. :rolleyes:

The Doc is out now. :cool: (and pretty much agreeing with Hawg and FL-Flinter)

April 9, 2009, 12:47 AM

That does make you doubt the author, does it not?
The post I got my copy of "The Story of the Guns", by Sir J. Emerson Tennent has expired. Here is a link to a DL. 9.3 MB. Interesting.

Should you DL it, read pps. 7 to 22.


The rifled musket was by no means accurate, and this is the 1853 Enfield.

You may brag about how accurate your smooth bores and muskets are. If you are not shooting "rifles" that are and were designed to be accurate, as the rifles made in PA in the 18th and early 19th century, hand made rifles, you ain't gonna shoot clover leaves.


A round ball most certainly DOES have to have spin imparted to it to be accurate. A conical bullet MUST have spin upon it to have any accuracy. An ARROW must have spin upon it to have any accuracy. You are trying to negate a couple thousand years of ballistic science. Arrows have had spiral fletching for most of those 2,000 years.

I will have to type the trials of the British tests, can't copy/paste.

"Not very long ago, a well trained marksman, provided with an old regulation musket, was placed to fire at a target 18 feet square from a distance of 300 yards, and found that he could put not even put into that spacious area even one bullet out of twenty."

Any projectile requires spin to stabilize, else it will act as an air foil. It will follow the path of least resistance, ala lower air pressure on one quadrant or the other. Base ball pitchers know that all too well. They can make the ball do as they wish, to a degree, because of the effects of aerodynamics.

Knuclke ballers impart NO spin, so the ball's flight is erratic. Hard to hit. But, if the batter doesn't swing, probably a "ball" called. Out of the "aim point" Just as smooth bores are out of the "strike zone".

Read the book, if you have room for a 26 meg tome. You might learn something.



April 9, 2009, 07:05 AM
I read the footnotes. The gun complained of, the Enfield, was a smoothbore at the time, and it was being used against a rifle, which allowed the French to kill from a greater distance. Since the British were not taught to aim, per se, and the trigger was slapped as opposed to pulled, it is not unconcievable that the 'accuracy' was limited.

These days, we know a little something about that thing called aiming, trigger pull and how to hold the gun.

My two cents.

The Doc is out now. :cool:

PS, got to page 29 before I realized that I had read past what you wanted me to.

April 9, 2009, 08:45 AM

You didn't read what I wrote.
in a perfect world the ball is a true sphere and will fly straight because there is nothing to make it not fly straight.

I also went on to point out that there is a major accuracy loss using undersize balls in smoothbore without proper patching.

George: "Not very long ago, a well trained marksman, provided with an old regulation musket, was placed to fire at a target 18 feet square from a distance of 300 yards, and found that he could put not even put into that spacious area even one bullet out of twenty."

Well trained in what? I can pull a sniper off a .338 Lapua and put him/her on a flintlock and when they couldn't hit anything at a 100yds prove absolutely nothing....what's the point? I saw an alleged "expert" on the history channel make a complete fool of himself showing he didn't even know the proper loading technique for a flintlock ... what does it prove other than he's ignorant to proper operation of the gun he's trying to use?

Spin has no major affect on outside forces either. Take a BPCR shooter running a 500gr bullet, at some distance the bullet velocity is going to drop off and the bullet will transition from supersonic to subsonic flight. Despite the fact that the bullet is still spinning about 50,000 Rpm, it's going to move around during the transition from supersonic to subsonic flight. Same thing with a fancy boattail match bullet spinning at 200,000 Rpm, if you try pushing it through a 25 Mph crosswind or over thermal currents, it's going to get pushed around despite the fact that it's spinning at 200,000 Rpm or 20 Rpm.

Aerodynamics only come into play when a projectile is within the subsonic realm of flight because that is the only time they are in direct contact with the air surrounding them. Projectiles that are short enough in length while in supersonic flight are enveloped in a vacuum however they are still subject to affects of pushing them through air that is moving and different air density zones they pass through from start to finish. If you're going argue point for point, each point must be an apples to apples comparison in that if you wish to discuss subsonic projectiles then the discussion must be limited to those alone; you cannot make the same argument for subsonic and supersonic projectiles.

Yes, arrows have fletching arranged in such a manner as to impart spin upon them to stabilize their flight path - however - if you manufacture the arrow in such a manner as to put the major mass in the lead, the minor mass of the shaft will create sufficient drag so as to create a stable flight path provided the arrow head and shaft are perfectly balanced and free of any defects and it is launched in such a manner as to prevent imparting instability. Since arrows do not have sufficient leading major mass nor are they perfectly balanced nor are they launched without injecting instability, they are allowed to impart spin via the fletching being in direct contact with the surrounding air.

Likewise, imparting an excessive amount of spin upon the arrow will reduce its level of accuracy because instead of using the rotational force to cancel out the imperfections, it will cause the imperfections to become amplified. Liken this to tire & wheel on your car; if you balance that tire & wheel combination to run smoothly at the rotational velocity equating to 60 Mph, at any speed above or below 60 Mph the tire is not going to be running smoothly. In the same manner as over-spinning a projectile, at speeds below 60 Mph you will likely not "feel" the instability however, at speeds above 60 Mph, the rotational force is subsequently increased to the point where the flaws become amplified and you will begin to feel them. When you spin a projectile, the same fact of physics remains in play; within a given rotational velocity range you will not see much of a change in accuracy but when you reduce or increase the rotational velocity above or below the acceptable limits, major losses of accuracy will be noted. This is especially true for round ball shooting muzzleloaders. Example is the common 1:48 twist used on mass-production rifles of .45-.54 caliber. Up to a certain velocity, they will produce an acceptable level of accuracy but when you exceed the upper velocity limit, the flaws within the ball become amplified by the rotational forces to a point where any hope of accuracy is lost. If the same imperfect ball is fired from a slower twist like 1:66 or 1:72, you can increase the velocity accordingly as the ball is still going operate within a given rotational velocity limit. Rotational velocity is directly proportional to velocity when launching a projectile because the twist rate of the bore is fixed. If you choose to see this with conical bullets, load some 100gr RN bullets in the .30-'06 having a fixed twist around 1:9 you will find that the short "light for caliber" bullets at maximum safe obtainable velocity will not produce acceptable accuracy yet when the velocity is lowered, the rotational velocity is also lowered and the bullets will again shoot accurately. The same applies when trying to push say a 230gr extremely long boattail spitzer through the same bore with a cartridge that will not provide enough velocity so as to allow the fixed rifling twist to impart enough rotational velocity to the bullet.

All of that is besides the point that if you have a perfectly flawless sphere, there is nothing for the rotational force to correct and thus it is not required. Rotational force is required to maintain stability of an elongated projectile and a spherical projectile that is somewhat less than perfect.

George: "Any projectile requires spin to stabilize, else it will act as an air foil. It will follow the path of least resistance, ala lower air pressure on one quadrant or the other."

No and Yes. "No" in that "any projectile" because if that were true, people would be extremely dizzy when they stumbled off an airplane. "Yes" in that external forces do affect objects passing through air but spinning the object has no opposing affect. No matter if you spin a bullet at 250,000 Rpm or 0 Rpm, there is no change in the amount of affect gravity or a 50 Mph crosswind will have upon it. If the bullet weighs 550 grains standing still, it still weighs 550 grains when it being rotated at 100,000 Rpm. If it is subjected to X amount of force from a 50 Mph crosswind, it will still be subjected to the same amount of force no matter what Rpm it's turning at or not turning at.

April 9, 2009, 11:32 AM
Looks like Hawg Haggen and FL-Flinter pretty much covered it, but I'll add a couple things...

... as I recall, the entry requirement for Berdan's Sharp Shooters was to hit an anchored buoy at 1500 yards with a regular issue rifled musket. Just because you and I can't do it, doesn't mean nobody could.

... when Union troops tried to move through east Tennessee on the railroads, the Tennessee boys sniped at them from long distances with deadly effect. 200+ yards.

Rifled muskets were NOT accurate. You guys are not, for the most part, shooting rifled muskets. Nor are you shooting in battle conditions.

We are shooting rifled muskets. As for battle conditions, let's not confuse the limitations of the shooter with the limitations of the musket.

As to that, you are also saying that you will shoot at a deer sized animal at less than a 100 yards, and advising others to do the same. You can't in one breath say that you have a 1,000 yard gun, but you "prefer", possibly because the deer will spoil by the time you trek that far to gut it, to shoot JUST 100 yard shots, so you can get it before it spoils.

If I came on here and said I'd shoot at a deer sized animal beyond 100 yards with anything having iron sights, I don't think there'd be a good response.

I said the rifled musket could hit targets beyond 1,000 yards. I did not say I had the ability. The rifle's limitations and my limitations are two different things.

If you handed me a 1,000 yard match rifle in, let's say .338 Mag, I still would not take 1,000 yard shots at a deer.

April 10, 2009, 02:18 AM

"In a perfect world..." That would have to include perfection in more than a perfect ball. Whitworth, 150 years ago said that even a perfect sphere would not fly true without the proper spin because of all the other perfections possible. Windage. Imperfect barrel. Even powder blast pushing differently on different portion of the seat of the ball.

"Well trained" in the arm in use in the day. What would you expect them to use? Well trained archers in the day of the gun?

I am well aware that different rates of twist are more fit for different calibers. I lived through the .244 Remington debacle, when the rate of spin was wrong for the heavier 105 ball that deer hunters preferred. So bad was the reputation that Rem had to rename it 6 mm Rem. I bought one of the first and loved it. ( I think it was 105. I didn't use it. I liked the 87 gr. Speer BTHP.)

I do find it interesting that Whitworth went all the way from one in 78 down to one in 5 inch twist and improved the results with every increase in spin. Settled on one in 20 as the to be production weapon.

Why is one in 60 and one in 72 being advised over one in 48, today.

Given, as I'm sure you agree, that balls are not perfect, a gyroscopic effect from proper spin will stabilize an erratic round ball to fly truer than an unspun/underspun, ball. Rotational force is required to maintain stability of ANY PROJECTILE. An airplane is not a projectile. It has wings upon it to maintain stable flight, and, yes, wind shear has an effect upon it. When the prevailing winds blow them off course, the pilot corrects for it.

A round ball or an elongated projectile cannot fly true unless you spin it. AND at the proper rate of rotation.

If you read the book, Whitworth even made a barrel 20 inches long with 1 in 1 twist, and buried a bullet 7 inches into elm wood.

I shoot BP pistol. Like to get into rifle, haven't. Can you buy a 36 or 40 barrel with faster twist?


I don't know where you read the 1500 yards anchored buoy as an entry test. To hit it, it must have been a BIG buoy. Sharp shooters that they were, they held off till the enemy was 200 yards or so away? Why didn't they shoot them at 500 or a thou, as good as they were?

Or is that a local legend.


"Nobody wants to stick their head up long enough to take aimed shots and risk it getting blown apart."

This is a "today" thing. You keep seeing the films from Iraq where the troops stick their auto fire rifles around the corner and spray off a burst.

I don't think there has ever been another WAR in which soldiers did that. ONE, except Viet Nam, never have our troops been solely equipped with fully auto weapons. Spray and pray is not conducive to good soldiering. Nor good marksmanship.

Regardless, we are talking about a time when massed troops faced each other on a plain. Maybe 500 troops in phalanx facing 500 on the other side of a 30 yard field, and the first 100 on each side shoots and 3 men may fall on either side. You cannot in any way call that accurate fire, although it may have been as accurate as possible, given that they were shooting the guns you praise, today.

As I mentioned, I shoot strictly BP revolver, anymore. Well, some 22 auto and my 44 mags and a couple 357s, then, of course, my carry pistol, and the ones it replaced. They do need exercise on occasion. Haven't shot any of my rifles or shotguns for years.

New Walker last week, new Starr 58 on the way, so I have enough to chew on.



April 10, 2009, 09:16 AM
C'mon George, you've got to be trolling here ... I'm waiting for the "gotchya" because you can't be serious? :confused:

Even powder blast pushing differently on different portion of the seat of the ball.

Pressure retained by a containment is equal at all points within the containment - impossible for the "pushing on different portion" claim.

I do find it interesting that Whitworth went all the way from one in 78 down to one in 5 inch twist and improved the results with every increase in spin. Settled on one in 20 as the to be production weapon.

Geeze, isn't that point I tried so very hard to make in my last reply that the bullet must be matched to the rifling twist and velocity and likewise? 1:78 was not enough, 1:5 was too much but 1:20 was just right....... reinforcing what I said yesterday or are you trying to counter my statement with supporting statements? :confused:

Why is one in 60 and one in 72 being advised over one in 48, today.

I have to assume your talking muzzleloader here - it's for patched ROUND BALL not conical bullets. The fastest way to reduce accuracy on the round ball is by running it at too-high an Rpm, slower twist allows for higher velocity without imparting excessive Rpm's. Why do you think it's such a rare condition to find a 1:28 or 1:32 twist in-line that will shoot a PRB with any level of control beyond 50 yards or with a reasonable powder charge? Why did Forsyth use 1:130 to 1:160 twist in his round ball elephant killers? Simply because he couldn't get the velocity without loosing accuracy until he slowed the twists way down to compensate.

If you read the book, Whitworth even made a barrel 20 inches long with 1 in 1 twist, and buried a bullet 7 inches into elm wood.

Incomplete statement that tells us nothing - "a smoothbore cut a 12" diameter oak tree completely off with one shot" ... Yes, I'm fairly sure I read the book many moons ago, there was not point nor theory proven that I can recall other than a bullet can penetrate some Elm wood - serves no purpose nor does it answer any questions.

My question for you George: Are you wanting to discuss elongated conical projectiles or rounb balls? Both are completely different critters. If you want to clear-up the problem you seem to have with roundballs fired from smoothbores, you need to attend some smoothbore shooting matches and see what a smoothie is really capable of. You may want to carry some nitro pills with you just in case it's too much for your heart when you see real marksmen and markswomen busting clay birds at 50yds and two liter soda bottles at 100yds.

Like I said above, get a fast twist barrel or pick-up a cheap in-line and see how limited the accuracy and velocity is using a PRB. I'll be more than happy to help you get a grasp on this my friend, I just need to you to choose which subject you want to tackle first; round ball or conical because I don't think you're following the differences between the two.

April 10, 2009, 12:30 PM
I gotta stop coming back to this thread. It's wearing away my blood pressure medicine!!!!! :o:(:mad:;):D

The Doc is out now. :cool:

April 10, 2009, 03:02 PM
I don't think George is a troll, I think he actually believes this chit. The 1840 Springfield was the only smooth bore issued in any numbers and that was early in the war. Southerners used whatever they had in the beginning. After the first few battles most of those were discarded for 61 Springfields and 53 Enfields. Anybody that says a 61 Springfield or 53 Enfield isn't accurate doesn't know what they're talking about and I don't care who they are.


"Nobody wants to stick their head up long enough to take aimed shots and risk it getting blown apart."

This is a "today" thing. You keep seeing the films from Iraq where the troops stick their auto fire rifles around the corner and spray off a burst.

No, that was a "then" thing too. Have you never seen any of the documentaries where CW dead were disinterred and examined? Many of them suffered head shots.

Regardless, we are talking about a time when massed troops faced each other on a plain. Maybe 500 troops in phalanx facing 500 on the other side of a 30 yard field,

Have you ever read a real history book or visited a CW battlefield? Yeah there were some massed troop attacks all through the war but the ranges were a lot greater than 30 yds. and it was usually one side charging dug in forces on the other side and the troop numbers is a large battle numbered in the thousands. You have the American Revolution confused with the CW.

Have you never heard(much less read) anything about The Wilderness, Chickamauga, Chattanooga, Seven Pines, Cold Harbor or any one of the greater CW battles?

I shoot BP pistol. Like to get into rifle, haven't.

There's your problem. You do not have the experience to know what you're talking about. Get yourself an Enfield or Springfield and learn to load and shoot it with the powder charges and bullets they used back then. You'll sing a different tune if you do.
Go on a traditional muzzleloading forum and say a smoothbore isn't accurate past 50 yds. and see what kind or responses you get from people that won't shoot anything else.

April 10, 2009, 04:04 PM
i had an african trade musket, .54cal smoothie with a 53 1/4" barrel. With 60gr Goex 3f and a .018 patch / .530 round ball that baby would lay a 4 1/2" group @ 75 yards and it only had a shotgun style front sight. No rear!

Smoothies can be very accurate. Back in the old'n days they used paper wadding, not cloth patches. The paper wadding was easier to reload in the field but as you can imagine, a loose fitting projectile, and especially in a smoothie can result in poor accuracy.

April 10, 2009, 05:00 PM
Fl, I'm sorry but you are ignoring basic aerodynamics in your theory. A round ball that does not spin will create drag on one side of the ball due to the eddy current flow around the ball. Take a vacuum cleaner set to blow, point it straight up and place a small beach ball on the current of air. When the beach ball is of the correct mass, it will dart from one side to the other because of the drag. The drag will vary from one side to another because the ball moves into the lower pressure area. this changes the drag to another place and the ball will then move into the newly created low pressure area. However if you impart a spin perpendicular to the axis of the air current, the ball will spin in place and will not move. A round ball does the same thing when shot from a smoothbore.

As the ball travels the drag changes from one area to another and the ball moves toward the low pressure area. Since there is no predicting the areas of drag, there is no predicting the ultimate position of the ball when it reaches the target distance. Add to this the uncertainties of wind, powder quality, elevation of the target relative to the gun and you will find that a smoothbore musket is not reliable beyond about 60 yards

When a round ball is spun, it keeps the drag in the same place and is accurate to a much greater distance. Incidentally, rifling was invented to spin balls not to make cleaning easier or fouling less. The German riflemakers found it made their rifles the standard of the world in the 18th Century. Pennslyvania rifle makers copied the German designs.

Conical projectiles follow a different set of rules because their shape causes drag in predictable areas. Spin is required to keep the center of gravity aligned with the direction of travel. The amount of spin depends on the Ballistic Co-efficient of the projectile and the velocity. Every conical projectile wobbles on its axis regardless of spin, but the wobble doesn't last long enough to draw it off target except at long ranges. The speed of modern rifles doesn't leave them in the air very long. If it took very long we would have to factor in precession, and coriolus forces.

Arrows though, do not need spin because they are fin stabilised. I make my arrows out of spruce and put feathers (not plastic vanes) straight not helical. If you look a high speed photos of arrows leaving a longbow(which I shoot) you will see the arrow bending around the bow and flexing back and forth as it travels. The fletching reduces the flexing and at long enough ranges brings the shaft back into equilibrium. Center of gravity is not as important as aerodynamic forces in an arrow. Some archers spin their arrows but I don't because the spin reduces range. (increased drag).:)

April 10, 2009, 08:45 PM
A round ball that does not spin will create drag on one side of the ball due to the eddy current flow around the ball.

Yep. And when the eddy is shed from that side another forms on the other side, which then sheds, and another forms on the first side, etc. etc.

So the sphere is thus subjected to alternating sideways forces, not just on one side only, as you claim (and then refute with your own description of the beach ball in a vacuum cleaner stream).

Those alternating forces are equal and balanced, so while there is sideways motion the net of the two is zero, resulting in a stable flight path with very low amplitude oscillation, as your beach ball example illustrates.

The amplitude of the oscillation is directly related to the mass of the sphere vs the sideways force caused by the drag of the eddy current, which in turn is a function of the speed through the fluid. For a round lead ball, the mass of the ball is much, much greater than the eddy current drag load (unlike the beach ball in your example) even at the very high speed of a bullet, so the oscillation is essentially ineffective.

April 11, 2009, 12:16 AM

Interesting. You DO have wind effect on the ball, BUT, since MacGille says "beach ball" and vac blowing on it, you deduct that a round lead ball will ALSO bob back and forth and up and down and ALWAYS be true on flight. I doubt it.


Pressure retained by a containment is equal at all points within the containment - impossible for the "pushing on different portion" claim.

That is a quote from the book. NOW, IF you would even deign to think that a ball or a bullet COULD be less than PERFECTLY even at the exit of the muzzle, could you say that a less than perfect ball or bullet would NOT be driven hither or yon, IF it were NOT, absolutely perfectly flat when it DID exit the muzzle?

Not COULD you say, but would you say that it could be sent off erratically?

Where did you say 1:20? I thought you liked 1:48 and 1:72.


Nah, I know they cost some, but if I decide to shoot BP rifle,l I think I will spring a few more bucks and try a Whitworth. I'm an old fart. I like to hit what I shoot at.

There is such a thing as a "Flat Earth Society". I don't equate round ball, smoothbore shooters with them, BUT, not too long after your musket became obsolete, you guys decided the rifle was a passing fad.

All well and good that you love and shoot smooth bores. They ain't in any way the bestest firearms you can shoot. FUN, if you can take the punishment of an overbore firearm. Beating your shoulder black and blue.



April 11, 2009, 01:33 AM
old or not, if you cant shoot worth a chit, aint no gun going to fix that for you.

April 11, 2009, 07:43 AM
MacGille: Take a vacuum cleaner set to blow, point it straight up and place a small beach ball on the current of air. - - - When a round ball is spun, it keeps the drag in the same place and is accurate to a much greater distance.

That's all good but it means nothing because the round ball from a gun is normally at supersonic velocity for the duration of its flight, not sub-sonic so it's not affected in the same manner as a beach ball in a subsonic air stream.

MacGille: Incidentally, rifling was invented to spin balls not to make cleaning easier or fouling less. The German riflemakers found it made their rifles the standard of the world in the 18th Century. Pennslyvania {sic} rifle makers copied the German designs.

Don't even get me started - that's a discussion all in itself! :eek:

MacGille: If you look a high speed photos of arrows leaving a longbow(which I shoot) you will see the arrow bending around the bow and flexing back and forth as it travels. The fletching reduces the flexing and at long enough ranges brings the shaft back into equilibrium. Center of gravity is not as important as aerodynamic forces in an arrow. Some archers spin their arrows but I don't because the spin reduces range. (increased drag).

Well, I was a lot more of a bow shooter before my body crapped out so it's not strange territory for me even if it's not my strongpoint. In response to your quote on arrow stability, I see your quote and raise you by two that are not mine; the follow quotes come from those who are far more knowledgeable in bow technology than I...

We can easily increase drag as much as we like during the initial stages of the arrows flight by the simple expedient of putting the vanes on at an angle (i.e. with an 'offset') which will, before the vanes start spinning, cause the desired extra drag and parachute effects at the initial phase of the arrows flight, then (by design) we find that both the drag and parachute effects decrease steadily as the rate of spin increases.

Hence, it is possible to have a spinning arrow that has no more drag than a non-spinning arrow, the spin stability resulting from this can only increase the directional stability of the arrow - leading to the fairly well-known and easily verifiable result that spinning shafts give tighter groups than non-spinning shafts, and the greater the spin, the greater the benefits (that is, greater directional stability).

The fletchings should be installed so as to produce the maximum rotational velocity rate of acceleration. The drag force applied perpendicular to the arrow shaft acts only to rotate the arrow on its axis. The initial drag force used to provide the rotational velocity combined with forcing the shaft to rotate is what reduces the initial forward velocity losses caused by shaft flex at launch. As the rotational velocity increases, forward velocity drag is reduced resulting in less forward velocity losses and substantial increases in flight stability.


George: Where did you say 1:20? I thought you liked 1:48 and 1:72.

The "1:20" came from your reply in the following quote:
George: I do find it interesting that Whitworth went all the way from one in 78 down to one in 5 inch twist and improved the results with every increase in spin. Settled on one in 20 as the to be production weapon.

PRB are not the same as conical bullets - pick one or the other to study because they are different.

You yourself admitted you have no experience with round balls yet you attempt to make completely erroneous statements while presenting them in a "matter of fact" manner despite the fact you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You go from talking about PRB's in a smoothbore then make a statement about Whitworth guns that used elongated conical bullets as if to try connecting the two when they are as different as night & day.

This "book" you keep referencing I believe is hurting you more than helping you. Reading the quote you provided is clear enough proof that the book is poorly written. Blow-by at the time the projectile clears the muzzle is not simply a matter of "pressure" - it is a matter of solids and gases passing at different velocities.

Absolutely I will agree with the general extraction of a statement from the quote in that a buggered-up ball and/or crown can in fact cause problems HOWEVER mechanical issues with a poorly made gun or components have no bearing on this discussion! Making that statement is like trying to make the argument that a Detroit Diesel engine doesn't produce its rated horsepower after someone removed three of its injectors - the statement makes no sense whatsoever because a mechanical problem is a mechanical problem and it serves no purpose in this discussion.

Please George, I'm trying to help explain this to you but I can't make any progress if you're not willing to accept facts and ignore BS that doesn't matter. You keep claiming that a PRB from a smoothbore is inaccurate beyond 60 yards and I'm trying to explain to you that you are wrong because they have in reality proven to be very accurate in actual application for the last eight centuries!

First thing I want you to do is take that book you have and lock in a drawer somewhere and forget every single thing you read. While you're in the forgetting phase, I want you to search the internet for "smoothbore match results" and follow a few dozen link taking note of the distances shot and the scores produced. Next thing I want you to do is find a local club that hosts black powder shoots and go to a smoothbore shoot and see for yourself.

(Edit-to correct errors)

April 11, 2009, 11:21 AM
As I read these posts with interest I keep thinking about FL-FLINTER's statement,As for the drop-correction, IIRC it was 60yds or less aim for the belt buckle; 60yds or more aim for the top of the head; this would put the ball somewhere in the torso out to 150yds.
I have a civil war Carbine and have shot it a number of times. I was displeased with how high it shot @50 yards:(, Now I have a full new respect for how this rifle shoots:),
Thanks FL-Flinter, I will now work with what could be the intended concept of this rifles design.
There is a flip up sight that is marked 3=300 yards in an aperture, and 5=500 yards at the top notch, And the patent date is 1856.


April 11, 2009, 12:50 PM
I have no dog in this fight, but it's not true to say that ALL projectiles must be spun. Once you get over a certain L/D (length/diameter) ratio, spin is detrimental to accuracy. Modern kinetic energy antitank projectiles are a good example - L/D is typically over 30; they are exclusively fin-stabilized and don't rotate at all.

April 11, 2009, 12:57 PM
As for the arrow thing. I don't bow hunt anymore but my hunting arrows with broad heads didn't spin. They were designed for the head to slip between the ribs. Spinning would have nullified that. Would have nullified any real penetration as far as that goes.

April 11, 2009, 11:21 PM

You seem to not understand anything I have typed or refuse to.

RB do not usually fly at supersonic velocities. That is 1100+FPS. It took a while to get to 1100 FPS. We talk about remaining velocity of 500 FPS, NOW, but many arms of the era you are defending never attained "supersonic" velocities.

.45 ACP was 830 FPS, and one of our best people killers since 1911, when we adopted it.

All those quotes you attribute to me about arrows, please ignore. I am not an archer. I would not dream of telling people how arrows act, other than to say that arrows have fletching to give them a spin. THAT art is a couple thousand years old. Hard to say, today, that you should not put any twist on an arrow's vanes, today, because you found a way to make them fly straight without giving them spin.

Rereading,I don't know who you are quoting. I do not think I have said 9 out of 10 things you quote

Hawg says:
"my hunting arrows with broad heads didn't spin. They were designed for the head to slip between the ribs. Spinning would have nullified that. Would have nullified any real penetration as far as that goes."

That is so BS that I don't know what to say about it. I am sorry, BUT, there is no way you are going to nock an arrow with the blades up and down and hit a deer, and slip the blades between the ribs. All the blades I have seen advertised are for the ones that flip out EXTRA cutting blades, or those that "core out" a big hole in the side of a deer.. Nobody that I know uses a 2 blade broadhead anymore. They are all 15 buck mechanical marvels.

As to that, no way in hell that you are going to shoot that arrow BETWEEN the ribs. If you HIT the DEER you are lucky. HIT the deer, and the blades are up and down, you should go hit Vegas. You'd be a millionaire overnight.



I didn't say I don't shoot "round ball", just that I shoot them out of pistols. My Walker is capable of 1100 FPS, that is approx. supersonic. THEY do not fly all over the place, nor do they ALL fall into a single hole, just BECAUSE they are about supersoniic.

You are deluded as to your accuracy.


Oh, your quotes, allude them to the poster. Don't tell everyone that I said such and such. I did NOT!

April 11, 2009, 11:36 PM
[QUOTEYou are deluded as to your accuracy. [/QUOTE]

You're just deluded. We've tried to explain the facts to you and you even admit you have no experience with any of it but yet you keep quoting this BS book that you must think is the be all end all of bp knowledge. Believe me it isn't. Until you get some actual experience don't make yourself sound any dumber than you already do.

Fingers McGee
April 11, 2009, 11:57 PM
Keep it up guys - I'm really enjoying this thread. :D:D:D


April 12, 2009, 06:30 AM

I'm not a scholar of CW gun but I know many similar styles did come with multi-blade or toggle-blade sights intended for use at given ranges. I do know for the average infantryman, K.I.S.S. was employed simply because you've got enough things going in battle that you're not neededing to be calculating bullet drop ... that little part about other people trying to poke holes in you kinda takes priority over ballistic charts. I do know some, I would suppose those issued only to sharpshooters, did have some interesting sight systems.

April 12, 2009, 06:50 AM
Keep it up guys - I'm really enjoying this thread.

I'm done with it.

April 12, 2009, 07:29 AM

Yes, my error, I did attribute quotes to you that should have been addressed to "MacGille" - I ran through this quickly and admit my error. :(

You did say the following:

RB do not usually fly at supersonic velocities. That is 1100+FPS. It took a while to get to 1100 FPS. We talk about remaining velocity of 500 FPS, NOW, but many arms of the era you are defending never attained "supersonic" velocities.

A mere 35gr charge of black powder in a rifle will launch a 0.490" PRB at supersonic velocity and a 110gr charge will easily push that same PRB above 2,100 fps - where are you getting your dis-information from? :confused:

I also asked you to explain:
That is a quote from the book. NOW, IF you would even deign to think that a ball or a bullet COULD be less than PERFECTLY even at the exit of the muzzle, could you say that a less than perfect ball or bullet would NOT be driven hither or yon, IF it were NOT, absolutely perfectly flat when it DID exit the muzzle?

Again - how can you connect a quality problem with the rifle and/or projectile to making the broad-based statement you did that round balls are not accurate beyond 50 yards? :confused:

Another thing - you made the comment about accuracy of the smoothbore but never answered my question as to how you can reasonably draw a correlation between a loose-fitting paper cartridge battlefield load to a properly patched load.

Now you said:
.45 ACP was 830 FPS, and one of our best people killers since 1911, when we adopted it.

We're talking smoothbore round ball here .... why are you bringing up the .45acp without even a remotely generated hint as to how you plan on connecting that to the smoothbore PRB topic? :confused: :confused:

April 12, 2009, 08:52 AM
arrows have fletching to give them a spin. THAT art is a couple thousand years old.

Fletching is an art that is quite old. Fletching stabilizes the arrow, it does not necessarily impart spin. Arrows have an L/D ratio such that spin is unnecessary for stability; high rates of spin are indeed detrimental to accuracy.

April 12, 2009, 11:48 PM

I gotta call BS on you. You ain't sending a .490 ball downstream with 35 gr of BP over 1100 FPS

The 32-40, cartridge, 32 cal, 40 grs. was pushed at 1752 FPS. SMALL ball, light, large charge.

.45 ACP was from another thread, don't know how I posted it here, BUT, someone loaded a 1911 with BP. Shot it. How it cycled, I don't know.

"Again - how can you connect a quality problem with the rifle and/or projectile to making the broad-based statement you did that round balls are not accurate beyond 50 yards?"

That is self evident. Neither the rifle or the ball is perfect. YOU cannot expect perfection, BECAUSE tou have no perception of WHAT is imperfect.

You cannot deny that not all round ball are perfect. You MIGHT mark a balanced ball, much as a golfer buys them floater things to tell them what the least dense part of the ball is. Smack it here!

YOU don't know if you put a ball in the barrel if your preferred point of the ball actually DOES get rammed to the load. Did it rotate on the way down?

I don't know where all of you are. I'll bring a 30" Rem or Browning and try a smoothbore shoot with you. Punkin balls if necessary. Brennek or some other slugs preferred.



Oh, and I think they are 72 calibre, and they fly at about 1200 FPS. About 19 grains of Red Dot.

Fingers McGee
April 13, 2009, 12:07 AM
More - We want more :):):)

How this went from a five year old thread questioning the safety of a certain manufacturers barrels to BP ballistics is beyond me; but it is entertaining.

April 13, 2009, 06:40 AM
Yeah, about as entertaining as watching two three year olds fight over a pull toy. Are these guys really adults?

April 13, 2009, 07:46 AM

Yeah, about as entertaining as watching two three year olds fight over a pull toy. Are these guys really adults?

That's the attitude I and many other get for trying to put out valid and correct information?

Your ignorance shows in your imperiousness!

These forums are for the sharing of knowledge and experiences with others. However, it is the small minority such as yourself who make these contemptuous comments that serve only present your vacuous mind to the world.

You are not being forced to read anything here. If you're not interested in the discussion or cannot understand the manner in which a topic is discussed with the presentation of theories, facts and opinions from all sides; perhaps you should avoid these situations that make you publicly show your ineptness?

April 13, 2009, 08:05 AM
To George and anyone else who is interested in the discussion of anything black powder / modern gun & accouterment related without having to endure the inane comments such as I addressed in my previous reply - please feel free to email me or come to my own forum linked below. I have spent more than 25 years and countless thousands of hours and dollars testing the old tried & true as well as developing new stuff and I am more than willing to share what I have learned and learn from others as well. I will occasionally address the infantile postings as I just did and I will continue to post here because I will not allow the ignorant minority to ruin the sport for everyone else!


Email: [email protected]

April 13, 2009, 08:22 AM
I quit posting on it because George's mind is set in concrete. He firmly believes the drivel he spouts. It's kinda like the old saying "never wrestle a pig, you both get dirty and the pig likes it".

April 13, 2009, 10:10 AM
the Sharing Of Knowledge
For instance:
your Ignorance...contemptuous Comments...your Vacuous Mind


April 13, 2009, 10:22 PM

I liked your reply to MyKeal. I've been other places where someone doesn't like the thread and carps instead of ignoring it. If it isn't interesting, please DO ignore it.

I may come visit your site, though if it is strictly smoothbore, I might not find it all that apt for me.

I shoot strictly BP revolver, as of late, 8 of them as of today when a new to me Starr 1858 showed up in my mailbox. All my revolver spin the ball, all of them CAN hold under 3 inches at 25 yards if I can do my part, and I often do.

Well, I do shoot some 22 auto and my carry gun when I get to the range. Today was to be a shooting day, but sat waiting for the mailman and the Starr. So, tomorrow.

I googled smooth bore shoot results, smooth bore shoots, and all I came up with is this page. Before you decry it, read it through. [I know you will say it's all hog, or "hawg" wash, but it does seem to indicate that the smoothbore that the rifled Enfield and Springfields replaced were inferior AT rang. Close up with "buck and ball", better as a combat weapon.

Hawg might, if he is still reading, read the part that says that shooting practice was all but non-existent, due to lack of ammunition.

Best excerpt from the page is this: "Whether firing a Model 1863 muzzle-loader or a gas-operated M1, the average citizen cannot hit the proverbial bull in the behind with a bass fiddle. Training helps, but training in marksmanship was something woefully lacking in most commands during the Civil War. Little time or ammunition was allocated to actual range practice - and many recruits went into battle without having fired a single practice round. (Coggins 39) "

And: "Instead, the men knew how to load the weapons, how to maintain the weapons, and how to fire the weapons in theory, but they didn't know anything about them in actual combat. A case in point would have to be the 24th Michigan. ``We find that it was sent to the front within a very few weeks of its formation in July 1862, and in its only recorded target practice during that time three men were wounded and one died of a heart attack'' (Griffith 88). This would be the only target practice until four months later, which again wasn't followed up. It was only after Gettysburg where the unit suffered 80 percent casualties, that serious target practice was given the men. This lack of training demonstrates that the combat performance of the weapons was less than it could have been. A soldier who is inexperienced with his weapon can not use it to the fullest potential, reducing accuracy and effectiveness."

I'm sorry if this flies in the face of your claim that they all shot tons of target practice.

Read the whole piece before you jump on me. I'm only a naysayer when it comes to smoothbores being more accurate than they actually are. They were all we had for centuries. When improvement appeared, it behhooved them who depended on their weapons for life and sustenance to "upgrade".

This was probably tough to do on the income of the time.

As a hobby, I have no bone to pick with those of you who like smoothbores. I like rifled revolvers. You like smoothbore muskets.



April 14, 2009, 09:41 PM

Believe it or not, I'm not much of a smoothbore rifle shooter, actually I haven't owned one in many years now. Most of my smoothie work was with birdshot loads and the Tula chokes. Primarily I shoot rifled bores with both round ball and heavy bore-size conicals both bare and paper patched. Got a .45 x 36" x 1:18 just waiting to get my underhammer action done to mount it on and run some of my 530gr bullets through it.

I sent you an email too; if you don't get it, email me.


April 14, 2009, 10:50 PM

I don't really think I am going to buy a Whitworth. They're rather high in price.

I WOULD like to have a rifle in .36 or .40 cal. Possibly H&A, or some other underhammer, if there are any. Gets the cone and hammer and cap fragments out of your face. Not many of them with my C&Bers, but some.

Does anybody sell barrels or rifles with other than 1:48 or 1: 72 or whatever spin?

Then again, I may be best off with a cartridge gun, falling or rolling block, 38/55 neighborhood.

Not to refer to the above thread directly, but one of the best things Whitworth did was settle on a .451 cal. for the military rifle. Made it less punishing for the poor saps who had to shoot those .69 cal cannons. I think it about halved powder expenditure, too.

If any gun beats you too hard, you are not going to shoot it all that well. My BPs don't. My .357s don't. Depending on the load, my .44 mags DO!



April 15, 2009, 01:45 PM
I spent the better part of the afternoon reading through all the posts on this site about the dangers of CVA. I also read posts that lashed out again Randy Wakeman. If you have read through those posts you might recognize my name. I am Erik Zenger and on November 4, 2001 I was hanging onto life by a thread after the CVA inline blackpowder rifle I was shooting exploded sending the bolt and spring mechanism back into the right side of my face. I have since had fourteen very painful surgeries to put the side of my face back together.

In the days following the accident I could not help but wondering what had gone wrong. I received the answer one evening a few days after the accident when I was contacted by a gentleman who stated that his son had been hurt just months prior by the same exact gun. He had heard about my accident on the news and said he immediately knew that it had to be the same gun. Over the next couple of weeks I spoke with him extensively about the guns and why the failures were occurring. It turns out that there had been a recall on the guns that were manufactured in the years of 1995 and 1996. I purchased my gun in 1999, two years after the recall occurred, from a sporting goods store in my town.

I decided to retain an attorney to try to get my mounting medical expenses covered. Over the next two years I learned a great deal about CVA guns and their poor safety record. I was made aware of others who had been injured by CVA guns, and was deposed in other cases against CVA that were preparing to go to trial. It was a long, arduous two year process of preparing for litigation. In the end I decided to settle the case with CVA and Dikar (the Spanish company that manufactures the barrels). This was after they tried to accuse me abusing the gun, using the wrong amount of black powder and even using smokeless powder. In the end it was proven that I had used the gun exactly how it was intended and I had done nothing wrong. I settled because I was tired, tired of dealing with blatant dishonesty and arrogance of Robert Hickey and his thug attorneys and tired of them trying to discredit me. I was ready to get on with my life.

Since the accident I have been made aware of, and contacted by, a growing number of victims of these poorly manufactured rifles. Up until just recently, none of the cases went to trial. CVA was quick to get out and settle the cases to prevent public knowledge through media attention that would have ensued if one went to trial. It also spared them from having to disclose information about the flawed manufacturing process of the guns.

Late last year I was subpoenaed to testify in the first CVA related injury case to go to trial. I sat there through testimony given by the Dikar representative from Spain. I was shocked and sickened by the disclosures he made while under oath about the manufacturing and testing procedures of all CVA/Dikar guns. The most shocking revelation of all was that ALL CVA rifles have a proof stamp on them indicating that they have been test fired under stress at a licensed proof house. Each proof house has a “proofmark” that is specific to them. Dikar, without permission from the local proof house, has duplicated their proofmark and apply it to every gun barrel they make, even though the gun has never been proof tested at all. I find it interesting that Europe will not allow the sales of CVA rifles as they are too dangerous, but we allow them to be sold in our country.

Where I don’t know the exact number of people injured by the faulty CVA rifles, I do know for certain of at least 53 cases and these are only the cases which were filed in Federal courts and does not include cases filed in district courts or the individuals that settled directly with CVA without ever filing a case. I have heard from very reliable sources that the number of injured actually reaches the hundreds, and not only includes guns from the 1997 recall, but also guns made and sold in the past couple of years.

The bottom line is that ALL CVA rifles are poorly manufactured and dangerous. I wish I would have come across information like Randy Wakeman is providing prior to my accident warning about the dangers of CVA guns. I hope that I would have believed him, and I hope I would have never shot my rifle again. It would have changed everything. As it is, I did shoot my gun, it did explode, and my face continues to be disfigured, and I still, eight years later, wake up at night having nightmares of being pronounced dead at the rifle range.

It is my opinion that a great deal of dangerous rhetoric abounds on this site. The argument that “I have a CVA gun, and I have never had a problem with it” is ridiculous. The numbers prove that they are not safe guns, and the fact that your particular gun has not failed yet, means nothing. Even worse are the comments made by CVA employees, assuring us that their product is “completely safe.” Very reminiscent of the Ford Company saying the Pinto was safe. But the great thing is that all of you have your freedom to choose what you will believe about CVA. In my mind shooting a CVA rifle is much like playing Russian roulette….you never know if it will be you who ends up spending years recovering from injuries sustained from one of their faulty guns. I would hope that those who do not believe Randy Wakeman, would change your minds. I would also hope that those who own a CVA rifle would never shoot it again. There are so many great options out there of guns which have truly been proof tested and which DO NOT have a long history of disfiguring people’s faces and ruining their lives. Why not choose one of those guns?

If you would like some unbiased, factual information about the law suits filed against CVA you can go to www.cvaguncases.com. This is a website being put together by Dean Wise, a private investigator who has collected a great deal of information about CVA and their manufacturing practices as well as an initial list of people hurt by CVA guns.

The x-ray found on his home page is of me and was taken minutes after my CVA Prohunter inline black powder rifle exploded projecting the bolt and spring deep into my face.

April 15, 2009, 02:37 PM
no comment.

April 15, 2009, 04:42 PM
That is the thing about the internet. Annonimity. Are you really who you say you are? We don't know.

What I do know is that this does not really pass the smell test.


1st. If the case was so good, why settle? Why cave in if it was that good a case for you and against CVA. Settling does not mean that it was proved that a proper load was used in the gun. Settling means that the case is over without fault being proved at all. Legally, that's the bottom line.

2nd. The website - under construction? If this was something that had been going on for years, why is the website under construction.

3rd. Unbiased website? I didn't see anything unbiased about it. Pretty much a one-sided thing that smacked of an ambulance chaser. A bunch of names, for sure, but anybody can put a bunch of names down.

4th. Photoshopping is too prevalent nowadays to say that is a true and correct x-ray. I'm looking for cracked bone and teeth and not seeing it. Click on the photo and it does not enlarge. That might help to show it was not photoshopped if we could see details, but we don't.

5th. No other x-rays. Why only one if so many were injured?

No, to me this sounds too much like somebody is pulling our collective leg here. Again, he could be who he says he is, but it s just as possible that the writer is not.

The Doc is out now. :cool:

April 15, 2009, 05:38 PM
I have to admit that I wondered how people would respond to my post. But I never imagined your senseless argument would be one of them. The answer to your question is simple.....I have nothing to gain by taking the time to write that lengthy post. Anonymity? I posted my name. Try googling it. you will see story after story of my accident. Better yet, if you really question if I am who I say I am, feel free to contact me by email and we can talk on the phone. I can send you picture after picture of my face before, during and after the surgery to remove the bolt. I can also send you multiple xrays and 50 or more MRI images. But I venture to guess that you will not email nor will we talk on the phone. You are the one hiding behind anonymity. What I would say to you is to be careful what you write....you might just dissuade someone from believing the truth about CVA and they might be the next victim. Do you want that on your conscience?

April 15, 2009, 05:46 PM
My cop friends ask me how I could sleep at night being a defense lawyer. I told them that after I found out I had sleep apthnea and got one of those machines, I slept fine.

It's the same thing here. I'll sleep fine since I do not know if you are really the person you say you are. :p

If you are who you say you are, you do not strengthen your argument by calling my response senseless.

In fact, it does make perfect sense, since, for all I know, you could be Wakeman here. I never met the guy. I don't know what he sounds like in person, so even if I was to call you, how do I know it is you, unless I see a driver's license, etc... As I said, this internet is a great thing for staying annonymous.

The Doc is out now. :cool:

PS, I googled the name Erik Zenger. Came up with some short articles, one by Chuck Hawks, but nothing stating you really are who you say you are. Sorry, that's the way it is.

April 15, 2009, 05:57 PM
Well, again you just have to question my motive. Why would I take the time to post this? I have nothing to gain. I am sorry that you don't think that i am who I say I am, but I am not going to let that dissuade me in my attempts to get the truth out there. If it truly matters to you, I am certain there are ways I could prove to you who I am....If it doesn't, then there is nothing I can do about it.

Thanks for taking time to respond.

April 15, 2009, 06:34 PM
Well Mr ezenger , I for one believe you , had a friend that had a 50 CVA POS and it flower potted (end of barrel split wide open)
I for one would not stand next to one of those things going off , fact.
And I understand settling , the sharks (lawyers) wear you down,happened to me in 85 when a high school kid ran over me and broke my back.
and I don't hide behind a fake name , I am
Jeffrey Noyes
7325 parrot dr
Port Richey FL

April 15, 2009, 06:52 PM
Thank you Mr. Noyes. Perhaps posting my contact information on here will lend credence to what I have written. If anyone would like to contact me, feel free.
Erik S. Zenger
PO Box 2101
Orem, Utah 84059
801 362 3000

April 15, 2009, 07:27 PM
a barrel splitting at the end means where was something pluging the end, like a bullet not pushed down, or mud stuck in the barrel.

April 15, 2009, 07:34 PM
Nope Mr FrontierGander just very pour quality , was rite there , it split from end to almost the breach , was in the morn , first shooting , clean gun , normal load , round ball.
You could not give me a CVA.

April 15, 2009, 08:35 PM
And DrLaw as you say a lot of us are fakes , how about posting your name and firm? or is that fake.
This is me , old Nam vet.

I'm sure you can read service connected

April 15, 2009, 08:52 PM
No, I am going to make you work at it.

I like to have fun on these forums. I have seen people do the old bait thing, putting out false threads to see who will jump on them. Skeptic? You betchya.

Frankly, Pappy, that could or could not be you. You see, anybody can post anything on these forums.

I have slightly over 300 some posts on these threads here, and have also been on The Firing Line and Surplusrifle.com's forum. As I said, I am going to make you work at it. There is enough out there in those forums to figure out who I am, where I am, and, if googled when you figure out the town and one other pertinent thing, you will find me. I've checked on that. In fact, I have fun checking on that from time to time. I can also be found using my real name on rr-fallenflags.org, since I am also a railfan.

The thing is that my guns I want secure. I don't give out my name willy-nilly.
Sorry, I just like to be secure.

And the fun part is, that you can believe that or not, and it will not bother me. :D

The Doc is out now. :cool:

PS, I printed out your card, ran it through a bar code reader at the local Wally World, and it said that you were $49.95, metal folding chair.


April 15, 2009, 08:52 PM
I'm not questioning anyone's integrity, but some of the generalizations made about all CVA guns does seem to go over the top. Especially considering the large volume of guns and models that they have produced over the years.
For whatever amount of defective guns that they have produced, CVA should certainly be held accountable for damages. And the outcomes of complaints shouldn't be kept secret so that they either produce better guns or be run out of business by the judgement of the jury of consumers.
Many manufacturers have made defective and dangerous products in the past, and rarely does that translate into an indictment condemning every product that the company ever made.
In CVA's case, most all of their products are still available in the marketplace in sufficient numbers so that the historical integrity of each of their products can be readily tested and verified by independent means if necessary. I'm sure that by finding out and verifying if the claims that shooting their guns is like playing Russian Roulette are actually true, then some firms would then be able to make a fortune in litigation and settlements for accidents that haven't even occurred yet, by forcing the recall of those products based on those predictions or by litigating all of the new accident claims.
Product testing would allow the real truth to come out about which guns are at most risk and which are not at any risk, so that the public isn't only hearing about false allegations and hasty over-generalizations.
Now I have a .36 caliber CVA sidelock and I'm supposed to believe that it's a ticking time bomb? That it can't withstand double [or triple] the recommended load of powder? Have a single one of them ever blown up?
Yet it's being asserted that no one should ever shoot any CVA gun again if they value their life, or advocate that anyone else do so either.
I truely feel sad for any innocent person that's injured by any defective product due to no fault of their own. But where to draw the line without some scientific testing and evidence? Let's not indict every product any company ever made with an overly broad brush. Justice would demand some surgical precision.
Which CVA guns are at high risk?
Which CVA guns are at low risk?
Which CVA guns are at no risk?
I wish that I had more information about CVA guns being outlawed in Europe. Does that apply to Dikar guns too and when did that go into effect?
Europe won't even allow the importation of American beef because of all the growth hormones that we feed our cattle. I can't say that I blame them, but I eat American beef and even go to MacDonald's. So where are we all supposed to draw the line about it being safe or not safe to participate in shooting CVA guns? Never ever?
Nuclear power plants have also been proven to cause an increase in child leukemia rates in counties and areas adjacent to them. Does that mean that we shouldn't have them anymore, or does that mean that we should make them safer? Should we close them all down right now and not let them produce anymore electricity?
These are real questions to real problems. People advocate courses of action based on their own perspective.
If I was injured and almost died from a CVA gun, I would be pretty upset and want some justice too. Exactly how to go about that is what becomes an agenda. I'm not sure what the best agenda is, but I really think that it should be based on scientific facts and testing. And when certain guns are found out to be bad or at risk then the facts should be screamed out from the mountain tops. Then let's all work together to verify the facts. It looks like many facts in the website are buried too deep somewhere. I don't know where to find many. At least not about my .36 CVA. Now is mine safe or not safe? Historically speaking, mine has already been proven to be safe unless someone can logically prove otherwise using relevant facts rather than emotionalism.

April 15, 2009, 09:01 PM
DrLaw he he , as i thought , a fake , if you are ashamed to post it just say it.
Just a pimple coated kid.

April 15, 2009, 10:34 PM
Well articap, I concur.....how does one go about spreading the word without coming across as having some ulterior agenda? I have struggled with that very question for years. I was content spreading the word on a local level after I was told by Robert Hickey (one time owner of CVA) and his attorneys that the injuries sustained by CVA guns were limited to guns built in 1995 and 1996. They went on to inform me that the recall was extremely effective and that there were very few of these "dangerous guns" that had not been found.

It wasn't until just 2 years ago that I came in contact with some attorneys that have evidence that there are many more injuries sustained from CVA guns than what I was lead to believe. I once again became angry, and decided that I would do anything in my power to make people aware of the dangers associated with CVA rifles.

You pose a valid question. How do we as consumers know which particular CVA rifles are dangerous. I dont believe that I am qualified to address that question with any scientific evidence. All I can say is that I would never let any of my friends or family shoot any gun manufactured by CVA or Dikar.

I received an email tonight that asked me why I would get involved and put myself in the line of fire. Well I can only answer that question like this. Imagine the most traumatic, horrific thing that has ever happened to you.....The one thing that changed your life forever. Ok now that you have that "one thing"....if you thought that you could prevent that from happening to anyone else, just by opening your mouth...would you? I decided that I would.

I hope that everyone will take the time to go check out the website www.cvaguncases.com. The site will be up and running at some point in time today.

April 15, 2009, 10:39 PM
arcticap you write a very nice post , very good. I cannot say they are all bad , only have seen and heard about that one time some 20 years ago.
It was a smooth bore 50 and it did split from front to rear , scared the hell out of us.
BUT it did make me shy of them.
I do worry about the TC Omega I bought here recently , calls for up to 150 grains and a sabot , no round ball recommended.
I will start with 90 grain for the TC 370 grain Maxie balls I have for it.
Got a felling it will kick like a mule.

April 16, 2009, 01:50 AM
PS, I printed out your card, ran it through a bar code reader at the local Wally World, and it said that you were $49.95, metal folding chair.

DrLaw, that is the funniest thing I have read all night. I almost fell out of my chair I was laughing so hard.

April 16, 2009, 12:32 PM
first case i went to that was you eric was a recall gun. Police report says there was no damage to the barrel or chamber of the rifle.

The bolt blew out into your face. Ok, wheres the dangerous barrel on your rifle?

im betting that 96'er had the plastic plunger plug on it right?

April 16, 2009, 12:48 PM
hahhaha no cases against TC or savage muzzleloading? Yeah i can tell you thats a HUUUUUUUUGE LIE right there! Hell on huntingnet.com a tc triump's barrel split open on a guy. Took him forever to get an replacement and when he did, that replacement was worse than the rifle that split open.

And savage when they first came out had a breech plug design flaw where they were ticking time bombs, ask toby bridges about his savage. Even recently way up in canada a guys savage blew up on him.

No cases again tc of savage. BS!!!! Someones lying right there.

IMO that website offered no answer on what actually happened. Hell i saw a case against traditions * dangerous gun* and the guy sued because his bolt/trigger got pulled back while going through brush and fired the rifle hitting him in the torso. Not quite sure what the rifles barrel is doing pointed at your stomach area while hiking through the brush. Anyone know how that can happen?

April 16, 2009, 02:09 PM
yep, my gun was one of the recall guns. My gun failed exactly how the other recall guns failed. The steel used was substandard and the scope holes were drilled too deep causing the barrel to split around the circumference. The last 1.5 inches of the barrel along with the breach plug, spring and bolt came out the back of the gun. I would be happy to send you pictures of the gun that were taken mere hours after the accident. One can plainly see the damage to the exterior of the gun.

I have made no comments about other brand of rifles not failing, I have only commented on overall safety records.

April 16, 2009, 02:39 PM
yeah and how deep were the holes?

Green mountains sight holes leave .050" thicknessof barrel left.

The police report said there was no damage to the barrel or chamber of your rifle.

April 16, 2009, 03:03 PM
That is an excellent question that I do not know the definitive answer to.....other than deep enough that my barrel split and damn near killed me. My gun was sent off to a gentleman by the name of Luke Hauge, who did a thorough review of the gun and evaluated the steel and the depth of the holes. I would be happy to obtain a copy of his report and forward it on to you.

April 16, 2009, 03:09 PM
You are correct, the police report does state that he did not see any overt damage to the barrel. If you are familiar with the construction of the Prohunter rifle you will know that it was a two piece barrel. The end of the barrel that failed was seated into a casing that held the bolt mechanism in place. In order to see where the barrel had split one has to look into the back of that casing to appreciate the fact that the breach plug and the last 1.5 inches of the barrel are missing. He was accurate that the barrel looks intact at first glance. lets keep in mind that he did a very brief assessment of the gun, and not a thorough inspection.

Again, I would be happy to send you pictures of the gun or a copy of the inspection performed by the third party gun specialist.

April 16, 2009, 03:14 PM
i see nothing about your barrel splitting. All ive read is that the rifle "back fired" a term ive never heard of before unless it was with a motor,and that the striker & spring hit you in the face. Theres pictures of your gun on that website.


April 16, 2009, 03:38 PM
The barrel did not split lengthwise, it split around the circumference. What you are looking at from that view is the sheath I spoke of in the previous post. The barrel was a two piece construction, so the part of the barrel that split was inside the sheath and to appreciate it, you would have to be looking into the sheath from the back of the gun. I apologize it is difficult to explain. But the end result is that the bolt and the spring you see there were both embedded into the right side of my face.

I am not sure where the term "backfired" started, but it was meant to describe the gun blowing everything out the back of the barrel instead of the front of the barrel.

April 16, 2009, 04:16 PM
Once again I would say that I have no ulterior motives in telling my story. I only want to let people know that I had a horrible experience with a CVA rifle and that over the past 8 years since my accident I have spoken with many others who have had similar experiences.

I do not have the time to sit here and go back and forth with naysayers. If there is anyone who is serious about finding out more about my experience or if you would like more information about CVA I would be happy to share anything that me or my attorneys gathered. If I can prevent one person from going through what I went through then it will be worth it.

Please feel free to contact me by mail at
PO Box 2101
Orem, Utah 84059

or by email at
[email protected]

or on my cell at 801-362-3000

April 16, 2009, 04:17 PM
Okay, I started looking at some of the court docket sheets. It indicates in the trial of Katzenmeier and Blackpowder Products (CVA?) and Dikar, that Wakeman's testimony was disallowed and the jury verdict was returned in favor of Blackpowder Products and Dikar.

That means Katzenmeier lost and the jury did not think that the gun was a bomb.

Also read Schaa. That was dismissed with prejudice, meaning that there could be no more lawsuit against CVA and Dikar (barrel maker)

Bazell, looks like they sued CVA, Dikar, WalMart and Sam's. Looks like CVA and Dikar were dumped from the case and they proceeded only against WalMart and reached a settlement.

Buschellman, totally dismissed. Also sued WalMart, CVA and Sam's. No settlement. Just dismissed.

Conger, no trial, just totally dismissed. No judgment, no nothing.

Kohn. Sued CVA and Cabellas. CVA was dismissed out. Case went back to county court from federal court against Cabellas, but there is nothing indicating how that came out against Cabellas.

None of those sound like CVA was at fault for anything.

Anybody want me to go on checking the other cases?

The Doc is out now. :cool:

April 16, 2009, 04:37 PM
:cool:I don't think I am going to check any more cases. Here is the bottom line.

Anybody can be sued anytime, anywhere for anything. The thing is that you have to have proof to have the case go on. None of these cases apparently did that I reviewed from that page against CVA.

Frankly, the page now sounds libelous as against CVA since they say CVA is dangerous, but the results of the suits are to the contrary. Libel is the spreading of falsehoods, knowingly, in print or media.

I think it is about time for the moderators to shut this thread down.

How about it Moderators?

The Doc is out now.

April 17, 2009, 04:55 PM
i think on page 2 or 3 of this article i asked if my CVA Kodiac Pro Mag is safe to shoot it was made in 2005 boy just reading all these replys are outstanding all i shoot is two 50 gr pellets with a 250 gr sabot or powerbelts so i thank you all for this valued info

April 17, 2009, 07:05 PM
You've created a Monster. IT'S ALIVE!

Yep, ya gotta be careful what kind of fertilizer ya use around this place. Dang weeds sprout up and before you know it, ya got 7 or 8 pages of weeds har. Eh-yup. Gotta be careful. :rolleyes:

The Doc is out now. :cool:

PS, you'll be fine with that load.

April 17, 2009, 10:13 PM
Good thread I see no need to shut it down...I din't throw my 1988 CVA 1863 Remington Zouave .58CAL away. I'll still shoot 500gr minee' Ball through it, but no more loading rods ... only launched one a them a couple three hundred yards down range. When I first got it.
Find it nawww...got a replacement from Dixie Gun Works :O)
(but it did kick a hair!)

April 18, 2009, 07:11 AM
but no more loading rods ... only launched one a them a couple three hundred yards down range.

Really? How did it do for accuracy? :D

I suggested shutting it down because the 'information' that we were getting had become more of a libel than truth and useful. I'd rather learn from the forums or be entertained. I saw this as becoming a thread for spreading libel as opposed to the truth, and that, is not educational or entertaining.

That's why I suggested it be locked. not because of anything that Smokinggun, Articap, Frontiergander or some others were putting here, but rather a couple in the minority. That's all.

Okay, okay, off my soapbox. (Why is it people expect lawyers not to be talkative?)

The Doc is out now. :cool:

April 18, 2009, 08:30 AM
Good thread I see no need to shut it down...I din't throw my 1988 CVA 1863 Remington Zouave .58CAL away. I'll still shoot 500gr minee' Ball through it, but no more loading rods ... only launched one a them a couple three hundred yards down range. When I first got it.
Find it nawww...got a replacement from Dixie Gun Works :O)
(but it did kick a hair!)

LOL, back in the early seventys I shot with the North-South Skrmish Assoication, At the spring national shoot one May, the whole eight member squad of a team for some unkown reason (to me anyway) shot the steel ramrods of their .58 cal muskets downrange at the target (a frame made out of two by fours holding a cardboard backer with clay targets attached). They knocked down the entire frame.:) Needless to say they were disqualified and put on probation for a good while.

April 18, 2009, 11:14 PM
I don't care who it is that whinges and screams "Shut'r down."

You got a thread going, and you all of a sudden want to put a stop to it.

Get off that thread if you don't like it. You have to click to read. You don't wanna, don't click.

Stay off and maybe there will be more interesting replies that others will enjoy.

You are not in any way an arbiter.

Lawyer or no, dialogue is good. It does not have to be filtered through a lawyer. In court, mebbe, but not on a discussion board.

One time I was told I should HAVE a lawyer, he sold me down the river. Give me 600 bucks and I'll do what you can do yourself for free. But I'll get you processed at 9 AM instead of you sitting in the Courthouse till the end of the day's session.


April 19, 2009, 09:07 AM
One time I was told I should HAVE a lawyer, he sold me down the river. Give me 600 bucks and I'll do what you can do yourself for free. But I'll get you processed at 9 AM instead of you sitting in the Courthouse till the end of the day's session.


So, you get ticked at me because you don't like the lawyer you chose? That's smart. Of course, you asked him what he would be doing for the $600.00 right? And, you were in the right, correct? Not like you could be in the wrong on something?

So, tell me, being as smart as you are obviously, how is it that a pack of lies is 'dialogue'? Did you read what was being said? Did you go to that webpage and look through those cases like I did?

And if you did do that, did you actually understand what was being said?

George, as I said before, I come here for entertainment and learning. Just what in your post is entertainment and learning. Sure, I could choose not to read this thread, which if you look, I did not start, but I did read it, and I saw that it was not true, and I said that.

You must have a problem with that. So just what is your problem? You don't like truth? You want people to be needlessly afraid? You want bad things to happen to good folks? You must, if you want lies to continue to be spread.

A long time ago, I decided I was a lazy person. I don't like to dicker, I don't like to haggle. I put it on the bottom line and that's that.

Stay off and maybe there will be more interesting replies that others will enjoy.

I take it you read the National Enquierer or some other rag like that and think its' news.

You are lucky today, George. Usually, I get to charge people who don't have a clue in order to clue them in. Today, you got it free!

The Doc is out now. :cool:

April 19, 2009, 09:14 PM

I would like for people to simply stop telling the Mods to "Shut this down." If they haven't, they must not think it is necessary.

'Nother "Doc" on a 'nother board that likes to do that, too. You didn't start this thread, but you did call for it to end. He starts them then tries to shut them down.

Information is always useful. The more you have, the better decision you can make. Shutting this thread will shut off any further spread of information regarding the CVA matter.

I did not go to the site to read about it. I'm not concerned, insofar as I don't have nor do I plan to buy a CVA rifle. I shoot strictly BP revolvers. My metallics have been idle for years.

As to the case above, I do believe the man said his was indeed one of the rifles under recall, and the accident happened after the recall was announced. I'd have to go back too far to ascertain that. Did he buy it new and register it with the mfg.? That would be the only more or less sure way to learn OF a recall. I think recalls are way underpublicized.

As to the lawyer it took me months to fire, simple thing. DUI. "I'll get you off."
Squire's office, "We'll take ARD." Bull****. I could have done that myself. BAC was over. I admit that. So?

Lawyers being lawyers, called another who brags about his success with DUI. "Oh, sure, I can get you out of it." "OK, the other lawyer screwed me." "What other lawyer?" "The one I fired." "Nope, I can't help you at all."

A funny thing about lawyers is you CAN'T fire them. When you do, they petition the court and the court allows them to withdraw. "You can't fire me. I quit." Kind of like corporate execs.

And, nope. Don't read any of the rags you allude to. I do read about all the current event mags on the rack, political mags from both sides.

You haven't clued me in at all. And your input in the last post is worth exactly your fee. Nada.

I'm done with this conversation.



April 19, 2009, 09:21 PM
OK Doc Law:

Here is the horses mouth. First thing that I will do is challenge you on your credentials as to being an attorney. All of the cases that you cited as being dismissed or dismissed with prejudice so CVA / Dikar / BPI and friends were not at fault or that the case was dismissed as to them and going forward as to the other party defendants shows me how little that you know about the law, or how much that you have forgotten. By the way, I am not an attorney but I did complete my Paralegal studies at the University of Tulsa, with Honors. Oh, and I have experience in law enforcement which is how I became a private investigator. Back to Law 101. Anytime that a case settles as to one or all of the parties the case is dismissed, with prejudice, as to that party, meaning that the case can not be refiled by the plaintiff, even if he gets buyers remorse or finds out that another plaintifff got millions when he only got a few thousand. He doesn't get a second bite at the apple. This you should have learned in your first year of law school. Dismissal with Prejudice always follows a settlement. In fact, as I am sure that you know, the settlement documents will include language requiring this, unless of course the defendant is very careless. By the way, where did you go to law school and what state(s) are you licensed to practice in? The Katzenmeier verdict said that the plaintiff did not prove his case, not that Dikar/CVA didn't manufacture a defective firearm. Since you are an attorney you probably know that the jury can render their verdict for any number of reasons, i.e., they just didn't get it, they didn't like the plaintiff, they were tired of driving to and from the federal courthouse, it was Friday and getting close to Christmas and they were tired of having spent 2 weeks of their life at this trial, etc. By the way, the jury was hung earlier in the day and had sent a note to the judge stating that. He asked them to continue deliberations on that Friday afternoon. I can assure you DrLaw that Bazzel, Buschelman, Conger, Kohn and all of the other plaintiff's received settlements, actually monetary payment, either from Dikar, CVA, BPI or their insurers or a combination of all. As to Randy Wakeman and the Katzenmeier trial, you need to check your information on this as well. Wakeman was not prohibited from testifying at trial, the Court only limited what he could testify to since he had not been qualified under the Daubert decision. Being an attorney I'm sure you know all about Daubert. I noticed that you sighted the PD report in Erik Zenger's case but not the PD report in the Neal case. Why not take that one to task as well? Oh, I see no purpose in closing down a perfectly good thread. Why would you want to limit consumers from getting facts. They get fed enough "other stuff" through marketing and advertising. So, with all of this said, I'm a first timer to this website and glad to be here and, glad to answer any questions that I can, either here in the open, or by email.

Dean Wise
[email protected]

April 19, 2009, 10:06 PM
Deanwise -

Welcome to the forum.


If you completed paralegal studies with honors at the University of Tulsa, how come you do not know how to spell "cited"?

April 19, 2009, 11:11 PM

You wrote:

"I don't think I am going to check any more cases. Here is the bottom line.

Anybody can be sued anytime, anywhere for anything. The thing is that you have to have proof to have the case go on. None of these cases apparently did that I reviewed from that page against CVA.

Frankly, the page now sounds libelous as against CVA since they say CVA is dangerous, but the results of the suits are to the contrary. Libel is the spreading of falsehoods, knowingly, in print or media.

I think it is about time for the moderators to shut this thread down.

How about it Moderators?

The Doc is out now.
General McAuliffe said it best "Nuts." "


It is true, that "Anybody can be sued anytime, anywhere for anything."

BUT, you don't have to prove anything for a case to go to trial. You bring a lawsuit, conduct discovery, and respond to motions for summary judgment or motions to dismiss, etc. That's why cases go to trial, to prove to the jury that what you allege is true. If the defendants want to allege it "ain't so" in a motion for summary judgment, they do that, through motions, and the Court decides. Very simple. (All of this education in the legal process is coming to you, DrLaw, free of charge.)

You write, the cases don't "go on". Back to legal classes for you. (Does the state, where you are licensed, not require a degree in law?) What state was that? Come on, give us your state and bar license number. Let's all be open and honest here. Are you really an attorney? Do you work for someone with a vested interest here?

If the web site information is, as you claim, "libelous" or "libel" and "spreading "falsehoods" why hasn't Dikar, BPI, CVA, D.C. 1980 filed an injuction (do you know what that is) or filed a lawsuit against me or cvaguncases.com for libel or to shut down cvaguncases.com? The attorney for Dikar/BPI knows where the courthouse is in Tulsa, OK. In fact, he has been to my office.

I left off my last posting that I am the owner and developer of cvaguncases.com. DrLaw, why don't you file something, as a friend of the court, to defend CVA / BPI / D.C. 1980 / Dikar and give me an opportunity to respond on the record?

Dean Wise
owner, cvaguncases.com

April 19, 2009, 11:19 PM

cite (st)
tr.v. cit·ed, cit·ing, cites
1. To quote as an authority or example.
2. To mention or bring forward as support, illustration, or proof: cited several instances of insubordinate behavior.
a. To commend officially for meritorious action in military service.
b. To honor formally.
4. To summon before a court of law.

What was it that I spelled incorrectly?

April 19, 2009, 11:22 PM
All of the cases that you "cited" as being dismissed or dismissed with prejudice

April 19, 2009, 11:32 PM

There is a difference in web "site" and a legal citation, "cite". I learned that at TU.

I will never say that I don't make typo's or mistakes, but I do try hard not to.


April 19, 2009, 11:57 PM
Deanwise I left this forum because of this this "Dr law" fraud , nice to see someone else with some sence.

April 20, 2009, 12:23 AM
move on trolls. You go take the $$$$$ that randy hands out to you and go off somewhere and enjoy it.

April 20, 2009, 07:15 AM
I noticed that you sighted the PD report in Erik Zenger's case

Emphasis is mine.

The above is from your initial post, #175 in sequence from the top of the thread, the one beginning,
Here is the horses mouth. First thing that I will do is challenge you on your credentials as to being an attorney.

One long, long paragraph, not a good advertisement for the University of Tulsa; I'd cite the line number but it will be different on some displays - it's near the bottom, both in terms of location and metaphor.

April 20, 2009, 07:38 AM
Dismissal with Prejudice always follows a settlement.

AAAAACCCCCCKKKKKKKKK, Wrong, guess again. You should get a refund for that 'paralegal' training.

I have to run now. More later.

The Doc is out now. :cool:

PS. Hey, Pappy, you're back. I thought you took you ball and went home! :rolleyes:

April 20, 2009, 07:39 AM
You are correct on that "sight". It should have been "cite" as it was in the third sentence. But, as I said, I will never say that I don't make typo's or mistakes. That includes grammatical errors. That's what I get for watching TV and playing on the internet at the same time. I may have to start proof reading my web postings.

April 20, 2009, 08:03 AM
Gee DrLaw you disappointed me. I thought that you would jump all over that filing something as a friend of the court thing. Now I'm really doubting your credentials. When exactly is it that you can file as amicus curiae? If you keep posting here you may need to buy a a Black's Law Dictionary.

"Wrong, guess again"? On what and why are you suddenly in a hurry? No time for a good debate this morning? Oh, I'll bet that you're probably on the way to the courthouse.

Oh well. Off to work for me as well.

April 20, 2009, 10:44 AM
Gee DrLaw you disappointed me. I thought that you would jump all over that filing something as a friend of the court thing. Now I'm really doubting your credentials. When exactly is it that you can file as amicus curiae? If you keep posting here you may need to buy a a Black's Law Dictionary.

"Wrong, guess again"? On what and why are you suddenly in a hurry? No time for a good debate this morning? Oh, I'll bet that you're probably on the way to the courthouse.

Oh well. Off to work for me as well.

Yes, I was off to a courthouse for a 9:00 AM CST hearing. Now, for more.

I am going to send individual answers to some of the people here, privately.
Obviously, there are some who disagree with me.

Tough. Get used to it, we will not agree.

Deanwise, as you should know if you have legal backgrounds, dismissal with prejudice means dismissal without being able to refile. It DOES NOT ALWAYS, as you stated, mean that there was a settlement. It means that the case is done and over with as to that defendant. Now, being in the law, I know that settlements are often not disclosed publicly due to the amounts of the settlement - one side or the other does not often want that knowledge out.

However, NOTHING in those docket sheets you posted (of the ones I read and mentioned) shows that CVA settled. Where is YOUR proof? You want proof I am a lawyer, guess what, I don't have to provide you proof. Have I said I wanted proof you are actually a licensed private investigator? No. I would not want you to post that information here, in public, in the form that another member here did with an ID card, as that is poor internet security.

If you want to know who and where I am, I left enough clues here on THE FIRING LINE. Somebody apparently cannot read the listing under my name to figure out which state I am in. Be a private dick, find me.

What I take issue with is presenting something as true without the facts (proof) to back it up. That is what your website is doing. Sorry, but that is the bottom line.

You question whether I am a lawyer for not jumping in as a friend of the court, or filing a brief on this. Answer your own question on when you jump in, if you were ever taught. My giving you an answer does not prove anything, as it can be looked up on the web.

Now, some of the others can look forward to receiving something privately from me. As for me, as somebody else put it, I don't have to click on this post. Quite frankly, I have learned a long time ago that one can cry wolf, or one can cry an alarm. One cannot save everybody from either. Those folks that want to believe Dean and Pappy and some others trashing a manufacturer, go ahead.

It's like Ron White says, "You can't fix stupid."

The Doc is out now. :cool:

April 20, 2009, 04:26 PM
boy did I ever open a can of worms :D very good info though

April 20, 2009, 04:49 PM
Methinks thou needest a wormer! :D

The Doc is out now. :cool:

April 21, 2009, 11:11 AM
Dr. Law,
I have read these posts and I myself am not even a good -CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED- house lawyer.
What bothers me is the perception of what is "Right" being relative to what a jury may decide by listening to the dialog presented to them and the limitations (directions) given to the jury by a judge.
A corporation drags in a large legal team and their job is to disqualify evidence that is damaging to there case. Granted we all want the best representation but the man that had to have a breech plug and plunger removed from the right side of their face is now somehow declared to have been at fault because the facts were ruled inadmissible!
You say to bad that is the law, i say the bay is deep enough for many more!

April 21, 2009, 05:15 PM
Dang!, well I say, them that's for secession get on one side, and thems thats against, get on the other! Oh yeah,,, thems that for, gets the brassers:p

April 21, 2009, 11:41 PM

Sorry I don't get to do this every night but, I, like you, work for a living. I travel a lot and will kind of do this message board as a spare time thing. A hobby so to speak. You said "It DOES NOT ALWAYS, as you stated, mean that there was a settlement." I don't think that is what I said. Please re-read my post carefully as I think that what I said was "Dismissal with Prejudice always follows a settlement". This, as you know, since you are an attorney, is true, and is usually ordered by the Court if not already offered and filed timely by the parties. Please review the docket sheets and other documents on cvaguncases.com. EVERY SETTLEMENT ended in a DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE. "My Bad" as they say for asking about your bar license, etc. Most attorneys willingly post this, and more, on their web site advertisements and it oftentimes appears in their court filings. But if you choose not to, so be it. You must just be bashful about such things. My corporate info is a matter of public record on the OK Sect of State web site. In Oklahoma you must be licensed, bonded and subjected to complaints, if any. By the way, CVA has filed none, and there are no lawsuits or attempts to shut my website down? Haven't you wondered why? Libel? Slander? I could not get to the courthouse fast enough to stop such violations! If you are an attorney, as you claim to be, I'll bet that you are one of those nasty defense attorneys that are hired by businesses and corporations like CVA / Dikar. Am I right or wrong? Please tell me that you don't defend against legitimate injured victims and injured worker's and that you don't support "Tort Reform"! Please tell me that it ain't so DrLaw!!

April 22, 2009, 12:14 PM
Maybe because your website has only had less than 300 hits? :D

April 22, 2009, 01:16 PM
Okay, Dean, you win. No use arguing. You cannot possibly be biased working for E&S, a Tulsa LLP that advertises that they take cases of dangerous black powder gun injuries. Yep, I am so bashful, my security has nothing to do with it. No doubt about it, I should just surrender to your almighty views.
Lord knows why I went to law school and have been licensed since 1984 in Illinois when I have to be taught by a paralegal all about the law. Silly me. Yep, I am one of those silly defense attornies. I can't say it ain't so. You must have used a 'twitchin' rod there in Tulsa town and devined all that info about me.
So I give up. No more arguing with no facts. No more arguing with lack of evidence. Yep, I'll just go baa like a good sheep you want me to be and slack off into the night.
You win. No more responses from me now. You got it all figured out in your own mind, and how could I ever win against that.

The Doc is out now. :cool:

April 22, 2009, 01:43 PM
I'm still interested in hearing about scientific testing and facts.
What has been discovered about any weaknesses in any CVA guns besides the ones that were recalled?
Why isn't this issue being addressed at all?
If there's some scientific evidence about CVA guns not being fit for their intended purpose then let's hear about it.
If more models of CVA guns are exploding then they must be getting tested. Are they all getting confiscated for the purpose of a cover up before the cases are even filed and go to court?
No independent testing, no analysis, no scientific experts, no gov't. consumer safety involvement, no objective journalist investigations and no documentaries or scientific documention anywhere in whole wide world?
I still haven't seen the regulation banning CVA or Dikar guns from being sold in Europe or heard about why and since when?
Please give us some facts!
Which gun models are on the market that can't at the very least be independently tested to obtain any evidence so that the "facts" about the alleged substandard CVA ticking time bombs can be exposed for the entire world to learn about?
Test, test, testing, testing, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, test, test, test.....is this microphone working?

April 22, 2009, 01:46 PM

300 hits since the launch 7 days ago isn't bad since I don't have it up on google or other search engines yet. Acceptable to me anyway. And, I received a request last night from an attorney for assistance in a CVA failure case that he has, so it may even become profitable. But anyway, I reset the counter on launch day and I do think that it will start getting more traffic as word gets out. And thanks for visiting by the way.

Now, let me take the high road here and say that I didn't join this forum to bash it's members. So since I fired the first shot questioning DrLaw's credentials I'll apologize for that and try to keep the debates, henceforth, to non personal issues.

I am who I say I am and cvaguncases.com is what I say that it is in my letter on the home page. It does not contain any photoshoped altered photos with the exception of one and that is the closeup of JD Katzenmeier's forehead showing the breech plug thread impressions. I cropped that photo from a full face view and enlarged it for use at the trial of his case. The photo was taken by the surgical team.

My web site contains true and correct copies of the court records and the docket sheets from the Pacer web site and true and correct information about the cases. I can't prove that and wouldn't even try to so you'll just have to make up your own mind about that. All of the documents on the web site can be obtained by anyone from the various court clerks and the Pacer web site. I just put them in a central location and made them available at no charge.

Again, I'll try to keep to the process of debating or exchanging information and stay away from the personal attacks and agree to disagree when necessary. So with that I'm out of here to get some work done.

April 22, 2009, 01:53 PM
randy's been posting that website for months now. i remember when a user name and password box would pop up and everyone was asking randy why that was like that.

You are who you say you are - There are no pro's on here and that includes you.

If you want to go on an attack rampage, you need to go after every single muzzle loader company out there.

Colts m-16 was and still is a POS and actually exploded in the hands of those testing them when they were new.... lets not forget how many troops died because of the m16s failures.

the way i see it, if you are just here to run your mouth and tell us stories that have already been solved by the law, i think it would be time for you to throw in the flag and call it quits on here. No one wants to hear yours or randys BS. I actually think you have your hand in the pocket of randy and are his little pet goat.

April 22, 2009, 09:44 PM
You say "months". Sorry, but you are, once again, incorrect. The launch was LESS than 1 month ago with the preview page only accessible without passwords. March 22, 2009, to be exact. I sent an email to James Singer, Attorney for BPI,CVA, et al on March 24, 2009, offering a pre public launch preview and opportunity to challenge or dispute content.

April 22, 2009, 09:55 PM

I'm a veteran. 1970 - 1972, U.S. Army, 8th Infantry Division, "Pathfinders", Honarable Discharge, fired many rounds through an M-16. What does the Viet Nam war have to do with Spanish manufactured muzzleloaders?

April 22, 2009, 10:15 PM
go away dean, no one wants you or randy here just running your mouths about recall guns. Shoo before i sick a lawyer on you for boring me with your games.

Go find something to do with your free time.

April 22, 2009, 10:23 PM
Good night all. If any of you have any spare time please consider helping an abused and neglected child by volunteering as a CASA in your area. Please visit the National CASA web site for more information. I have been a CASA since 2006 and it is the most rewarding endeavor I have ever undertaken.

Please visit http://www.nationalcasa.org/

April 22, 2009, 10:28 PM
deleted by moderator

4V50 Gary
April 22, 2009, 10:32 PM
Discuss issues and dispute opinions, but no personal attacks just because your opinion is contrary to another.

April 22, 2009, 10:34 PM

You avoided any reply to my postings about your incorrect previous postings. Who appointed you as the "king" to decide what anyone wants to hear on this forum? Get those lawyers lined up and file away.

April 22, 2009, 10:56 PM
deleted by moderator