Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Muzzleloaders Need Help Finding Muzzleloader

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.

Reading comprehension, please

If a firearm is more reliable, then let's show it. If a firearm has a faster locktime,let's show it. Merely asserting, claiming, and fawning is what catalogs and marketing departments do.

listen to what Hunters/shooters/'Smiths/powder company's ARE saying.

Holy crap this post has taken a turn....lets get back on task here

We have taken12" long pieces of barrel, threaded
and breeched both ends, drilling a hole in it for a fuse, and blew it up. From what has been said on this subject, one
would think this would act like grenade, blowing shrapnel all over the place. Not so, it merely opened up like a banana
peel. We also did the same thing to a piece of barrel that was made in a foreign country, I won't say which one. Now,
this one did act like a grenade, we found only about 1/3 of the barrel, the rest was blow to god knows where. We also
did a lot of proofing real thin barrels with huge loads, could not get them to blow. Also shot barrels with short started
balls, could not get them to bulge or blow. The only way we could get a bulge in the barrel was to load the barrel with
powder and a patched ball pushed all the way down onto the powder, then short starting a ball on top of all this......
bulged the barrel but did not blow it off. As a result of all of this playing around, I kind of thought to myself that it's
sort of foolish to proof a barrel, at least one of ours which I know how it is breeched. There have been a lot of comments
by people who have never made a barrel, nor did any experimental blow-ups. Unless you know what you're talking about
you are doing a great disservice to the muzzleloading game...............Don

listen to what Hunters/shooters/'Smiths/powder company's ARE saying.

http://muzzleloadertechtips.com/201...istently-make-tight-groups-at-100-yards/
http://www.shootersforum.com/muzzleloaders/59579-cva-apex-acuraccy-problem.html

Does Ardesa , Dikar , did Jukar , proof every barrel . NO .
So why is there a proof stamp . Because they BATCH PROOF thus the proof house has certified the barrels thus clearing the batch to carry thier mark .

They and you are full of $hit.

has it really or is just that one question submitted from a person who may not know better , has been replace by the same standard by someone who IMO twists things for their own betterment .

Does Ardesa , Dikar , did Jukar , proof every barrel . NO .
So why is there a proof stamp . Because they BATCH PROOF thus the proof house has certified the barrels thus clearing the batch to carry thier mark . Now you could argue around the subject of if these marking are provincial markings or actual definitive proofs .

magnafluxing only serves as a Provincial type of proof . IE by magnafluxing they find out if there is any visible reason why the barrel would not pass a Definitive proof ,its not an actual Definitive proof .
Lot by lot testing is just another name for batch testing and does NOT mean every barrel within that lot has been proofed . It only means that �IF� every barrel within that lot , is manufactured to the same standards as the barrel that was tested , then all is relative.

Thus if the US had the same Government enforced laws as many European countries do ,then every one of those barrels within that lot would have to carry a proof mark as the laws accept batch testing as an actual proof .Again under the very same assumption that every barrel made will be identical to the one tested . But the reality of it is we know they are not . Thus there are allowable variables in tolerances that are accepted.

We also must understand that just because a barrel was proofed , it doesn�t mean it stays in proof . Pitting of the barrel is just one thing that removes the proof . If a company like GM were to produce a barrel under English proofing laws , then sold that barrel to a company who cut dove tails , welded , soldered or threaded the barrel for a receiver or lets say they plated the barrel with nickel or chromed it . The barrel is then out of proof and the markings mean nothing .

Now how are you going to proof a barrel that hasn�t been chambered yet .
The answer is you DON�T . A Provincial proof is done. If the barrel blank passes that proof , then you finish the barrel and send it back for a Definitive proof which hopefully it will pass
But concerning muzzle loading , the minute that barrel is bored to a given bore and threaded for a plug , the very same thing has been done as in the chambering process .
IE the finished barrel has been defined . Thus a Definitive proof can then be done .

Lets not also forget that companies here in the US do not have to submit for proof. in fact there is nothing that ensures a company even follows the SAAMI Recommendations when they say they do .All that is just voluntary and we as customers have to accept that they do what they say they do ..

I know for a Fact that one of the best and most reputable muzzleloading barrel makers in the US does very little proofing . The owner has told me so . In fact he has stated this in public and openly that they stopped long ago doing anything more then an accessional batch test.

Most recently in a discussion concerning 12L14 being to soft for safe barrels .
He had this to say .



So what is more surprising? Is it that some company uses batch testing or magnafluxs and calls it a proof or is it a company who allows barrels with installed breech plugs that have the nipples held in by a heli coil to be sold to the public . Maybe its another US company that for a time sold a lot of barrels with the breech plugs that were just under 1/8 off face

The whole thing is nothing more then listening to obama give a speech . Just one spin after another

Have you seen, or even heard of one failing?

Have you informed Dikar of your findings and also informed them that they have perjured themselves in Federal Court?

Holy [bleep] who the hell wants to read "War and Peace"