Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Muzzleloaders Unsafe muzzleloading CVA

thought i would throw this video out there .
Thanks to Birddog 6 for posting this on another forum

There is one thing Im not sure I agree with in the video and that�s the recommendation of not using 3F powders in a rifle . maybe one of you experienced modern shooters could explain this to me as 3F is commonly used in both smooth and rifled traditional guns . so im not to sure what the reasoning behind this comment was

I also wish they had gone into showing the effects of duplex loading. For some reason here in the last couple years I have been seeing cases of this . IE people mixing powder . In a couple cases even low base smokeless with Black powder and in a couple other cases , low base mixed with modern synthetic
Powders . None of which IMO is a very smart thing to do .

Past that I thought showing the barrel failures was interesting . Not so much the failures themselves , but how each manufactures barrels handled the failures.

http://www.cva.com/dangerous-loading-practices.php

The CVA failures were not owner caused.

whats your exscuse
i also requested information for experienced shooters . Your not one of them

They wasted a lot of guns making that video and it was pretty unbiased since they used 3 different brands. Pretty informative and drives home the point that you have to be careful when you load a muzzleloader... No clue why the 3f was mentioned other then maybe there is inconsistency in the material from different manufacturers.

I have a friend that is a gun dealer and he muzzle load hunts. He has been using modern smokeless powder in an encore for years...He thinks bh209 is too expensive. Oh well and I hope nothing happens to him he is a great guy to deal with.

i was thinking the same thing . 2F does have a lower pressure spike so that could be the case .

i also found it interesting that the failure of both the CVA and TC rifles barrels seemed to be similar
� though I would agree this is just by looks of the video so hard to tell for sure �

Also the last test debunks myth busters LOL

You have to be careful with spanish made muzzleloaders no matter what.

Yes Troll , that video clearly showed that. Idiot

Used some fffg in my T/C renegade this morning (max 90 gr), so far so good. I sure get less hangfires with the 3f in a sidelock.

Guys, do what I do and use the "block" feature. You will be surprised how liberating it is. Whenever one who I have blocked comes up in a thread, I just smile and go to the next post. Way more fun than getting upset and trying to respond to someone who will not listen. They live for upsetting the cart, so I don't play that game.

***********************************************************

Like the good Captain questioned, I also wondered why they indicated in the video that FFFg wasn't to be used in rifles... especially since I've used FFFg Swiss in my two .50 caliber Hawkens (percussion caps) as well as my .50 caliber Shenandoah (flintlock) with success and fine accuracy. However, I must admit that I don't shoot really heavy loads in any of my traditional muzzle loaders. As best I can recall, I don't believe I've ever loaded more than 80-85 grains of FFFg in my rifles... and most of my shooting is done with considerably lower amounts of FFFg.

Now... smokeless powder??? That's a whole 'nuther ball-game!!! I guess some folks jus' have to learn "the-hard-way".

Jus' my 2 cents...


Strength & Honor...

Ron T.

IIRC FFFG would be OK with round balls in small bores like .45 or .50 but when you get into conicals or .54 cal and bigger FFg is the way to go. I doubt many shoot round balls in inline rifles.

One thing I can say is if you load that load of HS-6 pisto powder in any modern smokeless rifle, it is going to do the same thing.
Back in the days od my misspent youth, one of the neighbor boys got a hold of a 50 cal smooth bore musket. No black powder was around nor did we even know about it. We would steal 12 gauge shotgun ammo and strip it down for the powder.We had some cylindrical sinker molds that fit just right.

On evening , wanting to impress a rich neighbor kid, we poured two 12 gauge powder charges in it, stuffed some newspaper down it and then poured all the BB's from same down the barrel, topped off with more newspaper.

Being a little smarter, I stepped back a few feet, and the rich kid being smarter than both of us put together, backed off another 10 ft or so.My neighbor touched it of and the results made this video look like child's play.
My neighbor ended up with arm and facil lacerations and BB"S imbeded in the side of his face and arm.I end up with BB"s imbeded in my side and arm.Luckily no eye sight was damaged.
Not having a hospital within miles,the rich neighbor kid's dad was a dentist and he plucked all the BB"s out of us both and stitched up the lacerations.. All without anesthetic.

That did not hurt at all compared to what we got when our fathers got homne from the mine that day.

That was one day when stupid did get fixed.

120 grains of smokeless???

Only cartridge I ever loaded that much into was a 30/378

Yes... it was a VERY large load of a smokeless, fast-burning PISTOL powder to boot, but I guess he was trying to make a point.

But like Saddlesore wrote, "... that load of HS-6 pistol powder in any modern smokeless rifle, it is going to do the same thing."... and that's FOR SURE !~!~!


Strength & Honor...

Ron T.

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 .

Are you sure the Knight stock is wood? I have a LRH that looks just like that, but it has a synthetic stock that is made to look like a wood stock.

Like this:

http://www.knightrifles.com/long-range-hunter-MLRH707TF/

is it a laminate or solid poly ?

sure looks like a laminate wood to me . but as you say it could be a solide synthetic to

Mine looks just like the picture and is definately a synthetic. When I get a ding in it, it is just plastic underneath, not wood.

Well cva has a great movie there . Swampman700 these were not all spanish muzzleloaders but it was right on. Now 3ffg ive been hunting with these 40 plus years in still learning but here goes 3 fg start with 70 gr then work up my thompson 50s &54 with 3fg loose shoot good with 90 gr both guns my cvas shoot good with 80 gr 3fg powder My pennyslanva 50 work good with 80 gr also maxi or round balls .When using 3fffg reduce 10 gr from 80 an work up. But with remington-s 3fg is two hot for them there from the other side of spain

i use and have used for 20 some years , 3F in my 54 for both ball and conical and in my 62 for ball .
accracy is fine , no issues .
it used to be kinda a rule that 3F was for 54 and below and 2 F for 54 and above . then about ??? 10 years back people started say 50 was the break point . personaly i find 3F much better in just about everything but for shot loads .
well traditional muzzleloading anyway

txhunter58
is the stock on your rifle solid or is it a honey comb type afair ?.
it looks like both the CVA and TC are honey comb type stocks

CVA uses a heavier duty stock material than TC. Its much sturdier and doesnt have that loud thunk sound when something hits the stock. Another reason i like cva.