Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Muzzleloaders Need Help Finding Muzzleloader

haha wakeman always cracks me up.

Break actions are a horrible design yet he sends you a link to his recommended inlines and has the encore & impact listed.

Thanks, OH and Randy... I appreciate your help, I have been looking to get an Omega as they seem very popular, but haven't totally made up my mind yet...still gathering info!

Sure, you're certainly correct. Still, there is no substitute for shot placement, and hunting does not normally entail stationary targets at the same distances over and over - - - shooting off a lead sled. I've yet to hear of someone complaining that their hunting rifle is just too darn accurate.

The Omega was the biggest smash hit T/C ever had. At least you do have a one piece stock, two action screws, and a decent trigger for a T/C.

The Encore is, obviously, the most copied inline ever made after the Knight MK-85. Most every thing T/C does gets copied-- including their really dumb ideas, like a "quick release" breechplug. Really dumb, particularly the interrupted thread version. Others copied it anyway.

The QLA is another "idea," patented by T/C that people couldn't wait to copy. It does nothing for accuracy, it can destroy it, and it just takes away usable barrel length . . . as does the interrupted thread breechplug.

The Encore has also crept up in price. Perhaps the new FX version will address that? Mine isn't here yet. It also takes away all the oversized hinge pin drama.

Handling, fit, and price points are all something the individual gets to decide. Hunting is hunting-- to me, it is hard to understand why the same fellow with a bedded bolt action centerfire topped with a Swarovski sometimes settles for the cheapest frontstuffer that goes bang, topped by a Pine Ridge or BSA scope. It is puzzlingly common.

No one rightly claims that hunting is "subsistence." It hasn't been that way for a long time. As it is a sport, it isn't hard to understand why some folks want the best equipment available and take pride in it.

When the meat is gone, the gas is burned, the tags are filled . . . often, the only major thing left of lasting value is your rifle. It is one of the few pieces of hunting equipment that isn't a consumable.

+1, That's why my next ML will be an Apex.

I didn't mean to imply that accuracy isn't important in a hunting gun. I was responding to you saying a break open isn't used in target competition.

The Accura V2 I owned shot MOA all day long with the right load. That is certainly accurate enough for clean kills for the ranges it can shoot game humanely.

The Bergara barrels are very good for a production gun in the CVA price range. It also has an excellent trigger which helps accuracy. It's a lot better than some high dollar CF guns.

The question is will the break open action of the CVA loosen up with use? I haven't heard anything like that happening yet.

yeah the old story of " the break action will loosen up" has never been proven nor have i seen anyone say their break open just went tits up.

3,000 rounds out of my original Accura and that sucker would stack them all day long. 5,000 shots last year through 3 break action CVAs and its scary, but they shoot better and better each time i take them out.

No idea. The name of the company that makes the gun is Dikar, not "CVA." So-called "Bergara" barrels are nothing new, it is just the name of the town where Dikar is located, in Spain. Dikar front stuffers aren't proof-tested, they never have been, but they have admitted in open court to fraudulently stamping barrels with proof-fring marks that have never, ever seen a proof house and have never been fired. The track record of both Dikar and Ardesa is poor. So, no, I'm not comfortable with them and here's why: http://randywakeman.com/DangerousMuzzleloadersAHistory.htm

Whether they have "improved" or not is entirely speculation and if you want to just take their word for it, that's your choice. I've has far too many birthdays and have been in this industry far too long to just eat marketing materials.

Have you seen a Bergara barrel fail? Even the ones put in TC guns by the owners?

I have nothing to gain here. I shoot Hawken style guns now. I just hate for your comments to sway someone from buying a CVA if the CVA doesn't have a problem anymore.

I've read many of your articles, and I know how you feel about CVA guns. Is there any proof that CVA guns have a problem now? I'm open minded enough to change if there's a problem.

Randy, what about the hundreds of Apex/Accura user's/reviews on the 'net OR even Mike Bellm's opinion who is considered 'one of the best' well-known custom muzzleloading 'smith's around? Hell, he builds T/C aftermarket parts, but admits the Apex is one of the best built/accurate ML's since it came out.

http://www.bellmtcs.com/store/index.php?cid=572

Seems to me this Apex is recommended by more gun dealers/shooters/Blackhorn than any other brand available....And there not recieving $$ from CVA for the support.

So many outdoor enthusiast w/public web-sites & TV shows are freagin 'wagon riders. They ride the money wagon until another company offers them more. Betcha Micheal Waldell would be pushing Traditions if they made a better offer.

Good example:
"Jim Shockey now hunt's with a .357 Crossman air rifle"....gimme a [bleep] break.

Quoting from appellate case 09-1146, filed 12/10/2010, we have:

"When asked for the policy decision or reason as to why Dikar did not proof test the guns, Belatagi explained that �This is not our company�s decision. This is the decision of the
Proofhouse of Eibar. We must do what the proofhouse tells us to do.� Similarly, Muniategui explained in his deposition testimony that Dikar�s purpose in applying the House of Eibar emblem to its barrels was that �the proof house told us to do that.�

There are issues like this that are now part of the Public Record, based on sworn testimony given in open court. It is a legit concern, as "CVA" asserted over and over that their guns were proof-tested and intentionally applied a proof-house mark indicating that they had. Now, we know that the CVA (Dikar) proof marks were false.

You couldn't trust them then, so should you trust them now? I have no idea what the Dikar S. Coop policies and procedures are at the present and it doesn't seem like anyone else does, either. Fraudulent proof marks are no joke where I come from.

Lacking any further evidence, what current quality control is or is not is just idle speculation. There is no point in speculation anymore than there was with Firestone-Bridgestone tires or Toyota recalls, or any number of huge consumer cases out there.

All that can be said is that they have a dubious reputation and a poor track record. That is not at all to assert that "all" of them have problems, nor is it possible to just guess as to the viability or quality of one single firearm. That's just guessing and there is no point to it. Not all Firestone tires were defective, not all Ford Pintos had problems, nor are all Toyota's problem-filled.

Quality control is voluntary for muzzleloaders sold in the U.S., and at the discretion of the individual manufacturers. What is or isn't being done today is something that only the Dikar Cooperative itself could answer.

This .45 Encore Bergara barrel had the QLA removed by Bellm. Tightest 100yd group I have shot to date. Some like to dwell on the past and not move on to the future. An Apex from the reports I have seen would be a great gun!! Just my .02 cents.

The cardboard backer shows the hits much better.

Actually CVA Admits that they dont proof test every barrel LOL. They are very open and honest.

I however never see you telling folks that Green Mountain and Thompson Center do NOT test every barrel that they produce.

Toby Bridges shoots Traditions now and thats made in spain.

I think we all know what spokesmodels are in this country and no matter who is a spokesmodel for MacDonald's, it doesn't make their burgers any better.

There are standards in firearms testing and design: http://www.chuckhawks.com/muzzleloading_safety_design.htm. The companies that practice them deserve great praise, the ones who put profits ahead of safety deserve condemnation.

A lot of it is just whose ox is being gored. There are many firearm brands that have had great safety problems, from Remington to H & R to a variety of Turkish makers. It is hardly just a muzzleloading issue. In muzzleloading, though, when you consider the concerns of H.P. White, metallurgists, mechanical engineers, long-time industry veterans like Tony Knight and Doc White, there are legit concerns. Would you rather buy a firearm that is proof-tested, or one that isn't? The same goes for a hydraulic hose assembly, any pressure containing vessel, or even a prophylactic.

Consider there are up to 1700 drug recalls every year. Vioxx is considered to be the largest drug recall in history, and one which elicited one of the greatest public outcries. Vioxx, prescribed to more than 20 million people as a pain reliever for arthritis, was found to be responsible for increased risk of heart attack and stroke. Both Merck and the FDA were roundly criticized for ignoring evidence of the dangers of Vioxx before its eventual recall. The Lancet reported that as many as 140,000 people could have suffered from serious coronary heart disease from taking the drug in the US alone. Merck settled Vioxx litigation in the US for $4.8 billion, with close to $1 billion in legal expenses.


That hardly means that taking all prescription medication is bad! The billion dollar recalls make the headlines, though, and the comparatively tiny world of muzzleloading gets no such attention.

Then you need to pay closer attention: http://randywakeman.com/A-2011-Look-at-Muzzleloading-Safety.htm

Safety is no "LOL" as far as I'm concerned. For some, perhaps it is.

There is a big collision in standards. Dudley McGarity, C.E.O. of "B.P.I" which bought the "CVA Brand" when CVA was sued into insolvency . . . "B.P.I." is owned by the Spanish co-op, Dikar. Dikar assembles the guns that are branded as "CVA."

I can't fault Dudley for doing his job, which is selling boxes for Dikar. Dudley's a pleasant enough fellow. The collision in standards is a simple one: "CVA" / BPI / Dikar claims to proof-fire every centerfire Accura barrel they sell. I have no information that shows otherwise.

I asked Dudley, "Why?" The answer was words to the effect that proof-firing is a very basic and critical part of quality control.

Alright, so naturally I asked if his opinion is that proof-firing is so vital and so important to all your Accura center-fire barrels, how is it that your muzzleloading barrels are exempt from this basic, critical, vital Q.C. step?

There was of course no answer; you can't have it both ways. Either it is important or it isn't. Dudley replied, "Well-- Good point."

So, of course marketing can say that "CVA is the best in the world" just as marketing departments from all brands like to say that. But, you can't have it both ways. If B.P.I started testing their muzzleloaders properly, I'd be happy to shoot, review, and tout them.

However, if they insist on trying to save a few pesos in QC for something that they do for their CF (and even low-pressure shotgun barrels), just to try to squeeze more dollars out of their front-stuffers, that leaves things the way they have always been-- dubious QC.

It seems quite obvious to me that they easily could do better, but choose not to.

"Green Mountain barrels used by Knight have a good reputation, backed by quality American steel, that typically goes through ultrasound, dye penetrant, and eddy current testing before the solid bar ever leaves the mill." Typically meaning, they dont all go through this...





So GM and TC don't proof test any of their barrels yet you slam CVA Or Traditions for limited testing out of a bunch? LOL

Huh...Chuck Hawk?

Here is a Chuck Hawk quote for ya...

"I examined all of the new models at last year�s SHOT Show. The Spanish made CVA APEX and the Traditions Vortek are impressive designs. I wouldn�t hesitate to choose either over an American made Thompson/Center"

http://www.chuckhawks.com/current_state_muzzleloading.htm

CS at BlackHorn also suggested the Apex because of the well-built/accuracy it's obtaining. Hell, if I'm gonna run there powder...I'm gonna take there advice!

How old are you? Are you brand new to firearms . . . "LOL."

Green Mountain manufactures barrels, not firearms, barrels used by several American manufacturers that do indeed proof-test their product. You proof-test a barreled action, not a barrel that isn't chambered or a barrel only. What would you proof-test it with, or for?

T/C is a division of Smith & Wesson in Springfield, Mass., and of course they do proof-test the majority of the firearms they produce. The T/C continuous magnafluxing of barrels is well-known, as is lot-by-lot testing of certified steel.

Both Green Mountain and Thompson have excellent track records that they have earned over the years. A huge difference. Neither Traditions (Ardesa make) or "CVA" (Dikar make, imported by B.P.I., B.P.I. owned by Dikar) have any significant testing or engineering facilities in the United States that I know of. They sell boxes from Spain.

There is a reason most likely don't have a Spanish pump-gun, autoloader, bolt-action rifle, a Spanish pistol, etc. The legacy of quality guns is Italy, Germany, Belgium, Japan, the United States . . . and experience and a track record is not something to be casually or flippantly dismissed, as far as I'm concerned.

Reading comprehension, please. No, it isn't a Chuck Hawks quote at all . . . you yanked it from an article by Randy Smith. Safety & QC and "accuracy" are two different topics. Just because a gun is accurate doesn't automatically make it safe or well-tested. That's like suggesting a car that gets better gas mileage is a safer car. The opposite if often true.

An informed consumer is a better consumer. We all have the ability to do our own homework and make an informed decision. More information, based on history and facts, is a good thing. Anyone can assert anything, particularly anonymously, but being able to show it is something quite different. Recoil is one of the best examples: everything reduces recoil by 42, 48, or 87%, and any number of manufacturers make the "world's softest shooting shotgun." Anyone can say that something is "the best," that takes nothing, but a reasoned response, something that can be observed, shown, and demonstrated is a far higher level. We have all heard "Choosey Mothers Choose JIF!" but that type of bluster is void of the scientific method, meaning "cause and effect."

There is an inclination to name-call and argue over nothing, particularly when it is just what you own. The Ford / Chevy syndrome has gone on for years . . . it seems we just can't contain ourselves. "My Mossberg outshoots your Remchester and my Dad can beat up your Dad." It goes on with scopes, cars, food, televisions, clothes, everything.

If a firearm is more reliable, then let's show it. If a firearm has a faster locktime, let's show it. If a firearm is safer, let's show it. If it has a better trigger, let's show it. If it has a quieter safety, let's how it. If it has a more rigid lock-up, let's show it. If a firearm has better quality control and quality assurance, then let's show it. Merely asserting, claiming, and fawning is what catalogs and marketing departments do.

If you want equipment that suits you, then life is not a popularity contest. MacDonald's sells a lot of cheeseburgers, but that doesn't make them particularly good. A BSA or Simmons scope may well outsells Leupold, Swarovski, etc. . . . but that doesn't make them more worth having. Maybe some folks look for the cheapest doctor, the cheapest dentist, or the cheapest haircut. It hardly means it is a good choice if you care at all about what you're doing.

What anyone buys is their choice. It is up to the manufacturer to convince you that their product is viable, belongs in the stream of commerce, and is a reasonable choice. The rest is up to the individual, as it always has been.

Holy crap this post has taken a turn....lets get back on task here...
We need a MZ'er that can shoot 400yds with opened sights,looks nice has a great scope for an additional $100ish, loads by itself cause OP can't reload it,pretty camo stock and barrel, oh and let us not forget a screw on muzzle break

He doesn't care about proof testing as long as it meets the above criteria
Must be hundreds that meet his requirements

I once nailed a coyote at 80 yards (running) with my sling shot.

I don't care what you say, I made the shot, and that's that. So all you girly-men hunting with rifles, get a slingshot.