Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Muzzleloaders Unsafe muzzleloading CVA

Myself I think the 120 grain charge of smokeless was a good point .
Not so much that anyone would load that much in a smokeless gun , Or could for that mater .

But what would happen if you mistakenly loaded a max charge of smokeless in place of BP or its equivalent. So while we maybe able to say ; who would ever do that .
The reality of it is that if someone did not know better and exchanged smokeless for BP, they very well could ..
My bet is that even � that charge of smokeless , measured by volume would have produced much the same results .
so the question is was this charge 120 grains by volume or by wieght . Im thinking it was by volume

For those of us that know better though , there actually IMO is more in the video that�s not commented on . Now granted this was done with extremely high pressures , as was pointed out
Take a look at the first test . .
Here is what im noticing
a) on the Knight the bolt stayed in place . On the CVA the receiver stayed intact . Not much left of the TC action . All 3 are missing the breech plugs .
It would appear though that on the Knight and the CVA , those plugs did not go directly back into the shooter

b) the Knight rifle barrel steel held its integrity . Notice that the Knight barrel pealed back but still appears to not be missing piece . But on the CVA and TC both barrels have lost large sections .
But is this due to differences in designs Ie plunger action vs. break open ?

c) relates to the last part of b) and maybe plays a part in the reason the Knight faired differently then the CVA and TC . Take note of the stock . Its wood . Notice how the integrity of the stock on the knight , held while the two synthetic stocks came apart .
The synthetics provided from what I can see , no protection from the failure . While the wood stock sure seams to even at this great of pressure failure .