Dangerous Muzzleloaders?
Randy Wakeman
It is a sad fact that many muzzleloaders produced today with Spanish barrels
are marked with a pressure rating of 700 kp/cm²-- CLEARLY stamped on the
barrels. Relying on the ignorance of the muzzleloading community, aren't they
are the most popular barrels sold in the USA today? The dirty secret is that
the proof rating above is converted to PSI by the following formula: kp/cm² x
14.22 = psi. Directly put, these barrels are factory marked to a pressure of
9954 PSI MAX.
It is also well documented that so-called magnum loads, for example 150 grains
of Pyrodex pushing a 260 grain saboted projectile can easily develop pressures
exceeding 20,000 PSI. Much more moderate charges of 100 grains of Pyrodex
pushing the same 260 grain saboted bullet can easily develop pressures in the
13,000-14,000 range. In fact, the original Pyrodex pellet patent states this
quite clearly, to name only one document.
Do these soft, low-pressure barrels have any business being fired with loads
that create more than TWICE the stamped barrel's pressure rating? Does this
create an unnecessary risk both to the shooter, and to those around him? Will
it likely take death or dismemberment and the resultant lawsuits for this to
change?
Some may think my barrel safety questions inappropriate. Why would any
manufacturer market borderline or untested product? Why would Ford Motor
company knowingly sell Pintos with defective gas tanks, why would Enron steal
money from its employees, why would Bridgestone-Firestone sell defective tires,
why would Morton-Thiokol okay space shuttle O-ring systems their engineers had
severe reservations about? Why would Remington Arms (RACI Holding) continue to
settle defective Walker triggers? MUST it take a "60 Minutes expose or loss of
life to change or improve things?
Would anyone in their right mind reload a smokeless cartridge to TWICE the
SAMMI specifications, or come anywhere proof pressures? Don't today's
muzzleloading companies actively promote similar practices? Who is more stupid,
the people that ignore pressure ratings on barrels-or the companies that tell
you it is somehow "okay" to fire charges in barrels that have never, EVER been
individually tested to take such pressures?
Call me dense, but what automobile manufacturer's manual tells you to
over-inflate your tires by 100% of the stamped maximum pressure on the
sidewall? What smokeless powder firearms manufacturer directs you to set off
any single load in any single gun at near proof pressure in any barrel under
any circumstances, much less EXCEED it? Yet, some muzzleloading companies,
apparently, do it all the time. Wouldn't a lot of people like to know what that
might have to do with THEIR own gun, and what pressure their gun is REALLY
proofed for? Pressure limits are no secret in SAMMI / smokeless-land: in
muzzleloading, it apparently is!
Hodgdon Powder has long warned that either 100 grains Pyrodex pellets in .50
caliber or 100 grains Triple Seven pellets in .50 caliber is THE MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE LOAD. When muzzleloading manufacturers deviate from the propellant
maker's warnings, the burden is on them to prove its safety, in my opinion.
Are they DANGEROUS? I don't know. Have they ever been shown to be safe with
high-octane loads? How does a modern muzzleloader know what his gun is capable
of? Shouldn't modern muzzleloaders be PROVED safe prior to sale? ISN'T IT A
VERY REASONABLE QUESTION FOR ANY GUN OWNER TO ASK?
I think it most certainly is.
© 2003 Randy Wakeman
All Rights Reserved.
No portions of the above text may be reproduced, stored, or transmitted without
the written permission of Randy Wakeman or his assigns.
Randy Wakeman
C-Sports
professed as fact in the above thread.
1) the markings on the barrels refer to a measurement as PSI-, If I am
correct, this refers NOT to Pounds per square inch, but to the measurement
of PASCAL per square inch. So begins the unraveling of fact in this thread
2) I have also done some research into the Spanish markings on the barrels.
The marks stamped on Spanish muzzle loaders are the MINIMUM requirements
needed to leave the Spanish government proof house- Their national minimum
standard. This in no way shows the maximum pressures that the barrels can
withstand. The US does not have to stamp their barrels with any standard.
3) In the US today, we have become a very litigious ( law suit happy)
society. Do any of us believe that a manufacturer would willingly and
knowingly bring themselves into such a situation? I believe the barrels that
this thread mentions have been tested in excess of the maximum loads and
have been given the proper load recommendations because of thorough and
scientific procedures.
4) The powder manufacturers MUST give recommendations to protect
themselves!- You see there are far too many Darwin award candidates that do
not read owners manuals ,operating instructions and load charts. Many too
many Pseudo experts and pseudo gunsmiths alter the guns and loads and then
want to blame the manufactures. There are a few individuals that will TRY to
load MAGNUM loads into a non magnum gun. The 100 grain load is the max on
Most standard guns, However muzzle loader classified as magnums may handle
higher loads. BECAUSE THE GUN MANUFACTURERS HAVE TESTED THEM!
5) There has been made reference to Ford motor companies Pintos, Firestone
tires, Remington Rifles and "Sixty Minutes".
Fords did Explode.
Firestones Did Blowout.
The space shuttle did explode.
Remington's did misfire after being adjusted by non certified gunsmiths.
Did Sixty minutes cover the point, "That most of the triggers were self
adjusted?
However: If these Spanish made guns are so dangerous, where are the piles
of maimed bodies which resulted from gun failures? If these guns are not
killing their owners by sending red hot pieces of shrapnel tearing through
their skulls, then there must be long lines of walking wounded waiting to
sue the companies that sell these products. Funny, I don''t remember hearing
of the vast numbers of dead and injured.
6) The internet is a wonderful place for anyone to express their opinion as
fact without the benefit of knowledge or proof.
7) The misinformation on the internet is limited only by the imagination of
the person telling the lie. The honest person or company is limited by the
truth. These people can always just crank up the level of their imagination
in response to the truth. This makes debate on the internet a loser for the
honest folks.
8) Including the very cheaply made imports from Asia, when was the last time
anyone heard of an honest case of catastrophic firearm failure in a muzzle
loader that did not involve smokeless powder, a known reckless act by the
shooter or a mistake in loading such as short starting a projectile. An
honest gun failure resulting from recommend loads with normal projectiles
properly loaded is virtually unknown in muzzle loaders regardless of country
or origin, brand of firearm or selling price.
Please understand I am not trying to judge or discredit the original poster,
no one would ever do that on the internet. But this thread seems to be
inline with the standards of the one recently resigned NY reporter for using
fiction as fact and the College professor from Atlanta that tried to use
very iffy information as scientific fact to support their causes
tango
news:000401c33a86$cdea0300$522afea9@server:
You need to be sure of your facts before going on a long post of unsure
guesses. To use the argument where are the bodies, is a totally
irresponsible argument. The reason for safety margins is not for lawyers
solely, but for general safety precautions for various guns, in varying
conditions.
The {I believe statements} reminds me of the I assume thought process.
Randy Wakeman
>correct, this refers NOT to Pounds per square inch, but to the measurement
>of PASCAL per square inch. So begins the unraveling of fact in this thread
No, my research was far more thorough than that. The markings are kiloponds/
cm2, identical to Kg/cms-- NOT kilopascals. This was confirmed in writing by
Austin & Halleck, Traditions, and others.
You won't find any unraveling based on your misunderstanding of kiloponds /cm2.
You can choose to call the markings "minimum." According to CIP / Spanish
rules, that is the bare minimum required to leave the country.
A proof mark never implies anything more than what it is. It merely means those
barrels have not been tested to more than 10,000 PSI, and anything beyond that
would be speculation.
These barrels are made of the same extruded metal and proofed the same way they
have for years. Doesn't it seem to you that our Spanish friends need to update
their proofs?
While the barrel metal has not changed-- factory recommended loads have
increased via 150 grain charges to 7,000 - 8000 PSI over what they were in
times past.
Randy Wakeman
ralanb
>> 1) the markings on the barrels refer to a measurement as PSI-,
> No, my research was far more thorough than that.
> This was confirmed in writing by Austin & Halleck, Traditions, and others.
>
> A proof mark never implies anything more than what it is. It merely means
> those barrels have not been tested to more than 10,000 PSI, and anything
beyond that would be speculation.
>
> While the barrel metal has not changed-- factory recommended loads have
> increased via 150 grain charges to 7,000 - 8000 PSI over what they were in
> times past.
> Randy Wakeman
WE SHOULD LOOK UP NAVY ARMS (Sorry for the cap lock)
Thy blew up a barrel and have some pressure info.
Also an email to Knight my be useful as they offer loads of 150 grains.
Look up pressure loads for the 50 -120 round I have seen them.
Something like 15,000 PSI.
Alan
JCKRigby
> I would like to take exception to a few of the points that
are being
> professed as fact in the above thread.
>
>
> 1) the markings on the barrels refer to a measurement as
PSI-, If I am
> correct, this refers NOT to Pounds per square inch, but to
the measurement
> of PASCAL per square inch. So begins the unraveling of
fact in this thread
>
<and a snip bakatcha'>
The proof mark on the Spanish barrel on my gun is in
"kp/cm^2"
kp is short for "kiloponds", not to be confused with
"kilo-pounds" It is generally considered an obsolete unit,
though still used by some firearms makers.
A kilopond is unit of weight equal to 9.80665 Newtons. (A
Newton is 1 kg-m/s^2.) So, Mr. Wakeman's conversion is
correct. Do a Google search for "kilopond" and all will be
revealed. Or go here:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/
The rest is just conversions to English units and math.
Additionally, a Pascal is a measurement of pressure (force
per unit area generally or N/m^2 specifically), therefore
Pascals per unit area is not defined as pressure. I don't
know what that is! :)
Anyway, I continued reading other journals and noted that,
many Spanish doubles makers proofed barrels at fairly low
pressures in Spain. While looking to sell and manufacture
guns in England, they were quite concerned with the
pressures used by the British for proofing barrels (Allen C.
Bedford, aka The Butcher, Proof Master of the of the English
Proof House). Some passed, many did not.
In the U.S. the non-destructive and destructive testing
criteria for some materials are quite stringent. I suspect
to quell any possibility of litigation. Especially with
firearms and other politically sensitive applications.
A 10,000 psi "proof" still sounds a bit low though :(
JCK
C-Sports
> >1) the markings on the barrels refer to a measurement as PSI-, If I am
> >correct, this refers NOT to Pounds per square inch, but to the
measurement
> >of PASCAL per square inch. So begins the unraveling of fact in this
thread
>
kiloponds/
by
> Austin & Halleck, Traditions, and others.
>
/cm2.
>
> You can choose to call the markings "minimum." According to CIP / Spanish
> rules, that is the bare minimum required to leave the country.
>
those
> barrels have not been tested to more than 10,000 PSI, and anything beyond
that
> would be speculation.
>
they
> have for years. Doesn't it seem to you that our Spanish friends need to
update
> their proofs?
>
> increased via 150 grain charges to 7,000 - 8000 PSI over what they were in
> times past.
> Randy Wakeman
So if I understand what the complaint is about-
"The Spanish government has a minimum standard and the US does not? "
What is the minimum PSI for a barrel made in the US?
Are we ( the American Muzzle loader) now going to tell Spain, that they
have to change their minimum standard, when we, the US does not have a
standard?
Is it true, that no US manufacturer stamps and will publish"Proofs" of their
barrels? So how do you know what pressures American MFG.'s Barrel A, B, C
or Z have?
What Certified Lab has performed these certified tests?
Also RW wrote
While the barrel metal has not changed-- factory recommended loads have
> increased via 150 grain charges to 7,000 - 8000 PSI over what they were in
> times past.
Are you trying to say that loads are now going to 250 Grains (100+150=250),
Gosh I have never seen, read or head that anywhere.
Please inform me of the intention of the thread. Are you trying to get
minimums on all American MFG. barrels or trying to Change Spain standards?