Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Muzzleloaders Lawsuit Filed

He was talking about round balls. You'd really kill yourself if you applied it to conicals.

It's time to clear up the nonsense about the loads that Sam Fadala allegedly recommended in his book, "Black Powder Hunting" (1978).

In the paragraph where he supposedly recommends a one-to-one powder to bullet weight ratio, he in fact refers to the practice as a "romantic notion", "another old-time axiom", and a "theorem". He says that "tested, this theorem has proved quite successful", and then goes on to say that above 50 caliber it "leaves a lot to be desired". He also, as noted by someone else here, was referring to loads for round balls.

He tested the "romantic notion" with a 50 caliber rifle with a 30-inch barrel and it chronographed at 2400fps. He also began the test with a .58, but that " barrel length and common sense dictated a cessation of the test at 200 grains of FFG", where he was getting 1800fps.

Later in the chapter he says, "Step one, then, in arriving at that sought-after perfect hunting load for the black powder muzzle loader is to consult the manufacturer as to maximum charges, and which powder granulation to use.", and in the same paragraph, "The maximum recommended by the maker of the rifle is never exceeded. He should know what his product is capable of."

The "romantic notion" that Dr. Sam recommended dangerous loads appears to exist only in folks' faulty memories.

Thanks Pappy, I knew you'd set it straight when you said you ordered the book.

What did he set straight? He just repeated what I said, and I was the one saying he was referring to round balls.

He was definitely recommending those loads, and I believe you took some facts out of context.

If I have time i'll go get the book, and quote Sam.

[quote=BarHunter]What did he set straight? He just repeated what I said, and I was the one saying he was referring to round balls.

He was definitely recommending those loads, and I believe you took some facts out of context.

If I have time i'll go get the book, and quote Sam. [/quote


The only one that took anything out of context was you, Cleopatra, Queen of Denial.

I read the book about 10 years ago, but that load stuck in my mind. I'll go check it out today, and if i'm wrong i'll admit it.

No need for childish insults.

Just pokin' fun, Friend. Anyone can " mis-remember" something. Just ask my second wife.

By all means get the book and read it again, not so you can come back on here and admit to anything, but because Fadala is a decent writer and a tireless tinkerer, not only with muzzleloaders, but all types of guns. Bows too. If he tells you about something, it's because he's done it and knows it first hand.

The thing about him I especially like is that he doesn't take sides in the silly debate about modern guns vs. traditional. He likes them all, and uses them all. One time he'll be writing about the latest powder and projectile; the next time he'll be telling about how to use pieces of hornets' nest between powder and patch to prevent burn-through. (By the way, I've tried that, and while I can't say whether or not it works, collecting the stuff can be exciting. It also looks interesting in your possibles bag).

I've been buying a few older sporting books lately, and I'm going to add some more of his; the book on .22s looks interesting.

No hard feelings, please. There's enough of that nonsense here.

No problem. I did state that he might have changed his recommendations later on. I think this was one of his first books, and the only one i read.

Just to be clear though. Didn't he recommend 170gr of powder for the 50 cal? That would be 1gr of powder for every grain of round ball weight. I know he backed off a bit as the calibers got larger.

He said, while discussing old-timey methods of determining proper loads, that the 1-1 principle had been successful, but that the principle didn't hold up well above .50 caliber. More importantly, after discussing this idea and some other traditional methods of load development, he very clearly states that you should always adhere to the maker's recommendations for maximum charges and proper granulations. Now that we live in Lawyer Land, I think it would have been wiser to have put that principle in the chapter before anything else. There's always the possibility that someone will mine a nugget of misinformation out of a book and act on it without reading the supporting text.

There have been, and still are available, traditional muzzleloaders that are designed for very heavy charges. Navy Arms made some .58 caliber "Hawkens" that were designed for beefy charges under heavy conicals. Currently, there's a company out in the Northwest that makes large bore underhammers with slow twists designed for roundballs over massive amounts of powder. Their 12-bore uses two caps to ensure ignition. Nice guns, but out of my price range and way more power than I need.

Ok, lets leave it at that.

Well, at least now we know Sam can't be blamed for all those CVAs blowing up.

And apparently neither is CVA since he seems to have dropped any allegations against them . That leaves Dikar which despite the name is a company not an individual .
And
Walmart , who sold the gun
So I wonder since the first one is not a US company and without the article saying just what federal level the lawsuit was filed in , just how he thinks he is going to hold Dikar accountable and by what standards .
Going to be rather interesting to see then try and justify quality in a country that has no legal standards of quality to follow .
Maybe that’s what this is all about , IE trying to make a precedence for new law .

That then leaves Wal-Mart. This guy better have better legal minds then the article seems to allude to or he will get eaten alive .
I wonder , would this be the same fella who for years has had photos of his hand plastered all over the net ?