Muzzleloader Information website

[Sandman]

Recently, while plowing thru informational webbies on Muzzleloading Manufacturers, I gandered at the Muzzleloader Information web to review for myself an other-than-manufacturer opinion on guns, the companies that make them and their standards.
One of the articles on that web scaired me because it involved a direct safety issue, ie: tests on internal bore pressures. His article was really rather a lament than a review, but it brings up a good subject, and I thought I'd mention it here. The only problem I have with the warning is, I haven't seen any problems like the article talks about on any muzzleloading websites I've seen other to mention a recall years ago on one muzzleloader which I can't recal now, which I guess has been corrected by now.
I guess it didn't scare me too much tho, because I purchased my 1st smokepole yesterday at the local Bass Pro in Nashville, and it was one of the import type guns in question, a CVA Optima, with scope and all the fixins to get out there for 260 smackos (about all I would want to spend). Course I still had to purchase some Pyrodex pellets and a sling, but the scope went on easy enuf (we'll see when I bore sight it (should be easy with a break open bore to set the initial aim point).
Well, enuf. If anyone knows of any RECENT blowup problems on the newer guns, lay it on me.

[quigleysharps4570]

Was it just the in-lines or were there traditional on the list also? Let us know how your sight-in goes on that new rifle. Don't have a clue about the in-lines, but the traditionals are always fun trying to figure out what load they like best. Good luck.

["BIGTYME"]

Sandman I have a hunting buddy who just purchased the exact M/L you have. He has not had any problems up to date and has been fireing that thing all summer but if I hear anything I will let you know.

[markwhiz]

That whole unsafe CVA issue has been floating around the web for almost 2 years now. One fella got on a soapbox about it and alienated a LOT of people over it.

Basically the issue revolved around interpretting load tests under European vs US standards of measure. Much to do about nothing - arguing apples vs oranges.

Bottom line here is that NO gun manufacturer is gonna sell a firearm to the public that is a timebomb - not in today's lawsuit-happy climate. As long as you don't exceed the manufacturer's load recommendations - you can shoot that rifle for practically forever. Enjoy it!!!

[Sandman]

quigleysharps4570 said:

Was it just the in-lines or were there traditional on the list also? Let us know how your sight-in goes on that new rifle. Don't have a clue about the in-lines, but the traditionals are always fun trying to figure out what load they like best. Good luck.

Quig4570, I donno if this is the correct format to reply but I'll try it. I don't see any reply button on the individual msg.
Anyway, there was actually no list. He stated that (words to the effect) manufaturers outside the US of A aren't subject to our NAMMI standards and (most) don't use them. CVA, apparently is one of them, anyway it's on his website. His main concern was that IF those companies know our NAMMI stds, and knew their own testing methods, following NAMMI tests would show their bores to be safety tested only to 9500psi or thereabouts, why would they market their product(s) as "safe" for magnum loads knowing that psi's for same can (and probably do) reach 25,000psi. Which I think is pause for thought. The only counter to this reasoning I can think of is; How many, if any barrel bursts have been reported...