Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: cva wolf ??

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    richmond,ohio jefferson ,co
    Posts
    14

    cva wolf ??

    does anybody own one an what kind of load 2 you use in it.am giving this 2 my wife and i allways used 3 777 pellets and 295grs powerbelt in it.i want 2 back off the load 4 the wife ,seeing that 3 pellets does have a kick 2 it
    am thinking about starting out at 80grs of pyrdex pushing a xtp44cal240gr bullet.does 80grs have enough power at 100yrds???the other bullet i have is shockwave's 250grs.
    twister

  2. #2
    *Co-Owner - Admin* bowhunter1023's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    SE Ohio
    Posts
    29,326
    Blog Entries
    2
    I had one that I bought for the wife. She now shoots my CVA Optima Elite with 100 grains of Triple 7 and a 295 grain Powerbelt Aerotip. I set her Wolf up to shoot 100 grain of pellets with a 223 grain Powerbelt Aerotip. It would shoot 3" groups at 100 yards and carried plenty of knock down power. I also use Remington Klen-Bore primers...
    "And a country boy is all I'll ever be..."

    Live to hunt. Hunt to live. It's just how I live...

  3. #3
    *Supporting member* Beentown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sunbury, OH
    Posts
    13,187
    Don't have one but 80 grains is plenty of ass. I use 90gr behind 250 T/C in a Thunderhawk and it does a fantastic job. Sometimes I us the Dead Centers also. I believe Lundy has a muzzleloading calc that takes into account BC/powder/weight and gives you full ballistics info.
    Molōn labe!

    ,'';=====-
    !

  4. #4
    *Supporting member* xbowguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Licking Co. Ohio
    Posts
    4,817
    90 gr. Behind a 250 shockwave shoots real good out of my Omega.
    Give Em' All The Minerals They Will Take...Then Let Em' Go And Watch Em' Grow !

    http://www.crossbow-deer-hunting.com

  5. #5
    1. Baxley vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, Federal Court, Louisiana, Western District, injured 09/17/2001, CVA Mountain Stalker, serial # 61-13-055764, case filed 9/04/2002, settled, closed 12/23/2003, 15 months after filing in federal court. This IS NOT a "recalled" CVA case.

    *New out of the box, it failed catastrophically the first time that it was fired.
    2. Bowman vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, Federal Court, Kentucky, Eastern District, injured 10/13/1996, case filed 7/28/1997, settled, closed 1/19/1999, 17 months after filing in federal court.
    3. Buschelman vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, State Court, Ohio, Butler County, injured 12/23/1996, case filed 01/23/1997, settled, closed 3/1/1999, 26 months after filing in state court.
    4. Creason vs Blackpowder Products, Inc., et al, Federal Court, Colorado, Central District, CO, injured 09/05/2005, CVA Pro Hunter, serial # 61-13-029938-96, case filed 10/17/2007, settled, closed 10/09/2008, 12 months after filing in federal court.

    *Del's Pro Hunter was purchased for him as a Christmas gift by his wife. New out of the box, it failed catastrophically the seventh time that it was fired.
    5. Embry vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, Federal Court, Kentucky, Western District, injured 12/01/2002, CVA Staghorn, filed 10/22/2003, settled, closed 07/21/2004, 9 months after filing in federal court.

    *Terry thinks that his CVA Staghorn had only been shot 7 times since he received it and only 3 times on the day that it failed. He is not sure of this because he suffers from permanent memory loss as well as severed tendons to his thumb and forefinger and permanent injuries to his nose, mouth and teeth. Terry has been unable to return to work as a result of the injuries that he sustained from the catastrophic failure of his CVA Staghorn. Terry received his Staghorn as a gift from his sister.

    In their Answers to the allegations in Terry's Complaint, D.C. 1980, Inc., Fifth Defense (page 5) states that "Plaintiff....was himself guilty of negligence which was a substantial factor in causing and contributing to the alleged injuries..." and in the Sixth Defense (page 5) state that "Plaintiffs' injuries were caused by misuse, modifications or alterations of the firearm..." Defendant Dikar, in their Answers to the the Complaint, Thirteenth Defense (page 4) state that "Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands and on the grounds that plaintiffs' accident occurred as the direct and proximate result of plaintiffs' violation of law."). On January 26, 2009, BPI - CVA's President Dudley McGarity said in his email to O'Neill Williams:
    “In fact, the recall is still in effect and we mention this in all of our catalogs and on our web page. The necessity for this recall made for some very difficult times for our Company, and indeed for some people who were injured with these guns. However, CVA took full responsibility at that time, and BPI (the current owner of the CVA brand) is continuing the efforts to find all 80,000 of these guns. So far, about 96% have been accounted for. For those who were injured with these guns, CVA or BPI has worked with those persons in good faith and given monetary settlements in the more serious cases. Because we have taken responsibility for these guns, no case involving a recall gun has ever gone to trial.”
    6. Harlow vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, State Court, Virginia, Prince William County, injured 10/06/1996, filed 1997, settled in 1999.
    7. Haymaker vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, Federal Court, Kentucky, Eastern District, injured 10/01/1996, CVA Buckmaster, serial # 61-13-031146-96, case filed 01/28/1997, settled, closed 03/04/1999, 26 months after filing in federal court.

    *Matthew Haymaker's father, Tim Haymaker, said that Matt lost his right eye after being struck in the face by the bolt and other parts of his CVA Buckmaster following the catastrophic failure on October 1, 1996.
    8. Howard vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, Federal Court, Kentucky, Eastern District, injured 10/17/1996, CVA Buckmaster, case filed10/14/1997, settled, closed 12/28/1998, 14 months after filing in federal court.
    9. Keglovitz vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, State Court, Michigan, Circuit Court of Oakland, injured 06/10/2000, case filed 2001, settled in 2003.
    10. Lewis vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, Federal Court, Tennessee, Eastern District, injured 10/20/1996, defendants removed this case from McMinn County, TN, Circuit Court on 06/12/1997, settled, case closed 02/25/1999, 20 months after removal to federal court.
    11. Marvin vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, State Court, Utah, 4th District, UT, injured 09/22/2001, CVA Pro Hunter, serial # 61-13-030060-96, case filed 01/15/2002, settled in 2004.

    *Alan Marvin’s father, Mark Marvin, said that he had purchased 3 CVA Pro Hunters from Sam’s Club. Mark said that he considers himself and Alan's older brother very lucky because the Pro Hunters that they were firing did not explode as well. Mark, who had spoken to Erik Zenger a few days after the failure of Erik's Pro Hunter, said that both Alan and Erik's CVA's had the same failures resulting in similar injuries. The Pro Hunter that failed catastrophically on September 22, 2001, had been purchased by Mark as a Christmas gift in December 1996. Mark sent all 3 Pro Hunters back to CVA. CVA sent him 3 new Firebolts.
    12. Neal vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, Federal Court, Kentucky, Eastern District, injured 10/15/2000, CVA Buckmaster, serial # 61-13-033151-96, case filed 01/02/2001, settled, closed 11/19/2002, 22 months after filing in federal court.
    13. Roberts vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, Federal Court, Ohio, Southern District, injured 11/17/1996, CVA Pro Hunter, serial # 61-13-039823-96, case filed 03/21/1997, settled, closed 09/10/1999, 30 months after filing in federal court.
    14. Robinette vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, State Court, Michigan, Oakland County, injured 12/15/1996, CVA Stag Horn, serial # 61-13-010441-96, case filed 1997, settled in 1999.
    15. Schaa vs D.C. 1980, et al, State Court, Ohio, Hamilton County, injured 12/27/2000, CVA Stag Horn, case filed 2002, settled in 2003.
    16. Seifker vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, Federal Court, Ohio, Northern District, injured 12/29/1996, CVA Stag Horn, serial # 61-13-027118-96, case filed 01/24/1997, settled, closed 04/11/2000, 39 months after filing in federal court.
    17. Smith vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, Federal Court, Virginia, Western District, injured 11/10/2006, CVA Pro Hunter, serial # 61-13-017971-96, case filed 11/10/2008, settled April 2010.

    *Charles alleges that he lost the vision in his right eye and suffered a brain injury as well as multiple fractures to his facial bones as a result of the catastrophic failure of his CVA muzzleloader.

    *This case involves a 1996 RECALLED CVA.
    18. Sullins vs Blackpowder Products, Inc., et al, Federal Court, Arkansas, Eastern District, injured 01/05/2002, case filed 2004, settled in 2005.
    19. Warfield vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, Federal Court, Kentucky, Eastern District, injured 09/25/2005, CVA Pro Hunter, serial # 61-13-039492-96, case filed 02/10/2006, settled 06/292007, 16 months after filing in federal court.

    *Doug is blind in his right eye, his right cheek was crushed, he has no sinuses and he suffers from TMJ, all as a result of the catastrophic failure of his CVA Pro Hunter. Doug was never able to return to work after his Pro Hunter exploded in his face. Following the catastrophic failure of Doug’s CVA his neighbor, who also had a CVA muzzleloader, burned his in a trash pile.

    20. Whitehead vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, Federal Court, Kentucky, Eastern District, injured 10/12/1996, CVA Buckmaster, serial # 61-13-033278-96, defendants removed this case from Leslie, TN, Circuit Court on 05/20/1997, settled, case closed 08/13/1998, 15 months after removal to federal court.
    Your actions speak so loudly, I cannot hear what you say....

  6. #6
    Sidney bought his CVA Buckmaster new from Wal-Mart. He was shooting with his sons and had shot the Buckmaster only 6 times when it failed catastrophically.

    21. E. Zenger and M. Zenger vs D.C. 1980, et al, State Court, Utah, 4th District, UT, injured in 2001, CVA Pro Hunter, serial # 61-13-013872-96, case filed 03/03/2003, settled in 2004.

    * Erik Zenger has had 14 surgeries as the result of the catastrophic failure of his CVA Pro Hunter. Erik's brother, Michael, was standing nearby and he was also struck in the face and injured by the CVA Pro Hunter parts when it exploded and failed catastrophically. Michael also received a settlement from the defendants in this case.

    That x-ray at the top of each of cvaguncases.com web pages is of Erik's Zenger's skull. Those metallic objects sticking out of the right side of Erik's face are the bolt and spring from his CVA Pro Hunter.

    Thank you to all of the victims and family members that have taken the time to talk with me and to Erik Zenger, JD Katzenmeier, Troy Cashdollar and Jim Dial for allowing the use of your photos

    22. Alexander vs D.C. 1980 Inc., et al, Federal Court, Colorado, Central District, CO, filed 8/14/2003, settled 1/5/2005, 17 months after filing.
    23. Baker vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, Federal Court, Virginia, Western District, VA, CVA Apollo, serial # 61-13-065037-95, injured 09/15/1996, filed 03/09/1998, settled in 1999.
    24. Bazzell vs Dikar S. Coop, Ltd, et al, Federal Court, Missouri, Eastern District, MO, 1997 model CVA Apollo, serial # 61-13-013692-97, injured 11/12/2006, alleged failure similar to the failures in the '95 & '96 recalled guns, breech plug stripped out blowing the breech plug and other components of the muzzleloader into the victims face causing blast injuries to his head, face, right eye and right ear, the bolt spring penetrated the shooter's right cheek and lodged in his skull, filed 06/08/2007, settled in 2008. This IS NOT a "recalled" CVA case.
    25. Best vs Blackpowder Products, Inc., et al, Oklahoma, 2003 model Mag Hunter, serial # 61-13-030412-03, alleged new out of the box, failed the first time it was fired, barrel exploded and split open causing serious injuries to the victims left hand, settled before filing This IS NOT a "recalled" CVA case.
    26. Bodendein vs Blackpowder Products, Inc., et al, 2008 model .50 cal CVA Wolf, serial number 61-13-023144-08, injured 12/01/2009, alleged failure that the barrel exploded and caused hearing loss and injuries to the shooters face, pending, not yet filed. This IS NOT a "recalled" CVA case.
    27. Braden vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, Federal Court, Tennessee, Eastern District, KY, filed 10/25/2001 in Franklin County, TN Circuit Court, removed to Federal Court by defendant on 11/19/2001, settled 6/24/2002, 8 months after filing.
    28. Carroll vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, Oak Grove, Louisiana, West Carroll Parish, LA, injured 09/16/1996, settled before filing.
    29. Cashdollar vs Blackpowder Products, Inc., et al, Pennsylvania, 2001 model Eclipse, serial # 61-13-030288-01, alleged failure similar to the failures in the '95 & '96 recalled guns, breech plug stripped out blowing the bolt, spring and end cap into victims face, settled before filing. This IS NOT a "recalled" CVA case.
    Your actions speak so loudly, I cannot hear what you say....

  7. #7
    30. Conger vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, Federal Court, Michigan, Southern District, MI, failed Staghorn in-line, injured 12/2002, filed 4/21/2003, settled 12/03/2003, 8 months after filing.
    31. Coup vs Connecticut Valley Arms, State Court, Maryland, Circuit Court for Montgomery County, MD, filed 11/02/1989, failure involving a CVA flask, jury trial, verdict for plaintiff and against defendant CVA, judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $100,010.00, appealed by CVA, Appeal dismissed by CVA 08/12/1991, 21 months after filing. This IS NOT a "recalled" CVA case.
    32. Curtis vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, State Court, Arkansas, Ouachita, AR, CVA Stag Horn, serial # 61-13-044011-95, injured 10/19/2000, alleged injuries include damage to the shooters eye and loss of vision, filed 7/25/2003, settled 11/01/2004
    *This recalled Stag Horn was purchased new, from a Western Auto store, in December 1999, 2 years after CVA implemented the recall.
    33. Daniels vs Blackpowder Products, Inc., et al, Federal Court, Kentucky, Eastern District, KY filed 5/13/2002, settled 11/25/2002, 6 months after filing.
    34. Dial vs Blackpowder Products, Inc., et al, Oklahoma, 2001 model Eclipse, serial # 61-13-030713-01, alleged failure similar to the failures in the '95 & '96 recalled guns, breech plug stripped out blowing the bolt, spring and end cap into victims face, settled before filing. This IS NOT a "recalled" CVA case.
    35. Dickson vs Dikar S. Coop, Ltd, et al, Federal Court, Tennessee, Middle District, TN, filed 10/28/2002, settled 1/2/2003, 2 months after filing.
    36. Edwards vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, Federal Court, Kentucky, Eastern District, KY filed 8/09/2002, settlement conference held on 5/26/2004 but did not settle until 10/12/2004, 26 months after being filed.
    37. Fannin vs Blackpowder Products, Inc., et al, Ohio, 2002 model CVA Bobcat (side lock), serial # 61-13-152555-02, alleged barrel exploded in front of breech plug and caused injuries to the shooters left arm, face and hearing, settled before filing. This IS NOT a "recalled" CVA case.
    38. Fetter vs Dikar S Coop, Ltd, et al, State Court, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 2001 model Silver Trophy Hunter (side lock), serial # 61-13-918007-01, injured 12/26/2006, filed 9/23/2008, alleged failure that the barrel exploded and blew the shooters hand off, pending. This IS NOT a "recalled" CVA case.
    39. Freeman vs Connecticut Valley Arms, State Court, Georgia, Dekalb County, GA, 1997 model CVA Firebolt, serial # 61-13-096816-97, injured 10/08/2000, alleged failure that a screw in the end of the bolt action was blown out violently and struck the shooter in the right eye and orbital area, filed 09/04/2002, settled 08/01/2003. This IS NOT a "recalled" CVA case.
    40. Haga vs Blackpowder Products, Inc.et al, 2002 model CVA .50 caliber Mag Hunter, serial no. 61-13-077172-02, State Court, Oklahoma, District Court, Pawnee County, OK filed 04/20/2009, alleged failure that the barrel exploded and caused serious injuries to the shooters left hand and arm, pending. This IS NOT a "recalled" CVA case.
    41. Hamblin vs Connecticut Valley Arms, CVA Optima, alleged barrel exploded just in front of the breech plug, settled before filing 2009. This IS NOT a "recalled" CVA case.
    42. Healy vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, 1996 model CVA .50 caliber Buckmaster, serial no. 61-13-041597-96, State Court, Maryland, Circuit Court for Montgomery County, MD, injured 10/21/1999, filed 07/16/2001, alleged failure that the bolt of the muzzleloader was ejected out of the muzzleloader and into the shooters face, settled, closed 06/21/2002, 11 months after filing.
    43. Hodge vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, State Court, Arkansas, Circuit Court of Little River County, AR, .50 caliber CVA, serial # 61-13-10001A-95, injured 7/12/1997, alleged failure the muzzleloader exploded causing injuries to shooters right eye and right ear, filed 05/09/2000, settled 7/27/2001.
    44. Jenkins vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, State Court, Ohio, Scioto, OH filed 4/13/2000
    45. Johnson vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, Federal Court, Indiana, Northern District, IA, filed 6/30/1994. This IS NOT a "recalled" CVA case.
    46. Katzenmeier vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, Federal Court, Iowa, southern District, IA, 2004 model Kodiak, serial # 61-13-128824-04, alleged new out of the box, failed the very first time that it was fired, breech plug stripped out and the breech plug and other parts of the gun were blown back into the victims face, injured 10/02/2005, filed 4/11/2006, jury verdict for defendants, Appeal pending. This IS NOT a "recalled" CVA case.
    47. Kohn vs Blackpowder Products, Inc., et al, Federal Court, Wisconsin, Western District, WI, 2004 model CVA Kodiak Magnum, serial number 61-13-185379-04, alleged new out of the box, failed the very first time that it was fired, barrel exploded and caused injuries to the shooters face, filed 2/26/2007, settled in 2008. This IS NOT a "recalled" CVA case.
    48. Korf vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, State Court, Michigan, Oakland, MI, Grey Wolf (side lock), alleged new out of the box, failed the fourth time fired, barrel exploded and split open injuring victims hand, Robert said that his injuries would have been worse but he was using a bench rest and his hand was next to and not under the barrel, filed 5/13/1999, settled in 2000. This IS NOT a "recalled" CVA case.
    49. Lawson vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, 2004 model .50 cal CVA Optima Pro, serial number 61-13-104092-04, injured 01/01/2009, alleged failure that the barrel exploded and caused injuries to the shooters left hand and face, pending, not yet filed. This IS NOT a "recalled" CVA case.
    50. Link vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, Elizabethtown, Kentucky, injured 10/5/1996, settled before filing.
    51. Marshall vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, Federal Court, Tennessee, Eastern District, KY, failed Mountain Stalker (side lock), serial # 61-13-112341, alleged that explosion of the Mountain Stalker caused injuries to the shooters left hand and arm wrist, finger, scalp, and burns to abdominal wall and face, neck and forehead, injured 06/24/2004, filed 10/15/2004, settled, closed 01/11/2005, 3 months after filing in federal court. This IS NOT a "recalled" CVA case.
    52. Mills vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, Federal Court, Tennessee, Western District, KY, CVA Buckmaster, serial # 61-13-034899-96, injured 11/21/1996, filed 11/20/1997, alleged failure that the muzzleloader exploded and drove the bolt of the muzzleloader into the shooters cheek bone, settled in 1998.
    53. Nichols vs Connecticut Valley Arms, State Court, Michigan, Livingston County, MI filed 03/23/1988.
    54. Petrick vs Connecticut Valley Arms, Inc, et al, Federal Court, Michigan, Western District, MI, (side lock), filed 5/23/1995 This IS NOT a "recalled" CVA case.
    55. Robeaux vs Blackpowder Products Inc, et al, 2003 model .50 cal New Frontier, serial number 61-13-064064-03, injured 10/03/2009, alleged failure that the barrel exploded and caused serious injuries to the shooters left hand and arm, face and vision of left eye, pending, not yet filed. This IS NOT a "recalled" CVA case.
    56. Shockey vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, Tennessee, Shelbyville, Bedford County, TN, CVA Buckmaster, serial # 61-13-061922-95, injured 12/15/1996, settled before filing.
    57. Slaght vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, State Court, Michigan, Oakland, MI, 2001 model .50 cal CVA, serial # 61-13-158677-01, injured 03/29/2002, case filed 06/18/2004, settled, closed 01/10/2005, 6 months after filing in state court, alleged that the muzzleloader was new out of the box, failed the first time that it was fired, muzzleloader exploded and parts were blown into victims face. This IS NOT a "recalled" CVA case.
    58. J. Smith vs Dikar S. Coop, Ltd, et al, Federal Court, Louisiana, Eastern District, LA, 1994 model CVA (side lock), serial # 956439, injured 01/09/2009, alleged failure that the muzzleloader fired without the set trigger or firing trigger having been pulled, shooting the victim in the hand, filed 07/09/2009, pending. This IS NOT a "recalled" CVA case.
    59. Underwood vs Connecticut Valley Arms, et al, State Court, Ohio, Guernsey County, OH, 2004 model .45 cal CVA Kodiak, serial number 61-13-104092-04, injured 12/26/2007, case filed 12/17/2009, alleged failure that the muzzleloader exploded and caused the loss of the shooters right eye and severe injuries to his face, pending. This IS NOT a "recalled" CVA case.
    Your actions speak so loudly, I cannot hear what you say....

  8. #8
    *Supporting member* xbowguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Licking Co. Ohio
    Posts
    4,817
    WOW! Sorta gets your attention....... A friend of my Dads had one blow up about 20 years ago.... I see now it may have not been just another fluke accident.
    Give Em' All The Minerals They Will Take...Then Let Em' Go And Watch Em' Grow !

    http://www.crossbow-deer-hunting.com

  9. #9
    *Supporting member* Gern186's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    NW Ohio Tundra
    Posts
    6,066
    Dang......that's scary.

  10. #10
    Mr twister,

    First off I commend you for your bravery if you have been shooting 150 gr of powder from your CVA. On the positive side you have proof tested this gun for your wifes use.

    Your velocity using 80 gr. Pyrodex will be in the 1500- 1550 FPS range depending on barrel length.

    With a 240 XTP and a BC of .180 you will have around 1200 ft lbs at the muzzle.

    Zeroed at 50 yds, 1350 FPS, you have a retained energy of around 950 ft lbs
    3-1/2" low at 100, 1200 FPS, with a retained energy of around 775 ft lbs.

    To me this is starting to become a borderline load for 100 yds. Many deer are killed with less each year (.410) If I had no bullets on hand and wanted to shoot this reduced load I would choose a Barnes Expander 250 gr. It is just a much better bullet, especially for bone hits, than the 2 you have on hand in my opinion.

    Good luck to your wife.
    Last edited by Lundy; 12-29-2011 at 08:44 AM.

  11. #11
    I am certianly not looking for any deabtes on which gun to shoot over another. I just have an opinion. My 1st opinion is sell or cut in half any CVA rifles you may have immediatley and throw it in the trash.

    If you currently own a safe gun here is what I suggest you do.

    Buy several kinds of bullets and several different types of powder.
    Start shooting a selected bullet with propelant X in increasing increments.
    At some point in time you will see a group develop and then slip away as you increase the charge.
    Mark each target with the type of powder type, powder charge and bullet.
    Repeat this prcoess until you find the most effecient powder/bullet combo.

    We found that my rifle drives tacks at 50 yards with a 325 gr Hornady Great Plains bullet pushed by 85gr of fff Goex. A white sheet infront of the range proved that when we approached 100gr of powder we saw unburned powder. There is a bell curve with powder charge and bullet velocity. You will only acheive so much speed no matter how much powder you pour in since some will leave the barrel unburned or burned after the muzzle which also does no good. Keep in mind I am quite happy with limiting myself to shooting deer under 100 yards. Truth be known I have never killed a deer further than 80 yards, most within 50. At 50 yards that 325gr bullet approaching 1600fps is freakin brutal.
    Last edited by matt hougan; 12-29-2011 at 12:17 PM.
    Your actions speak so loudly, I cannot hear what you say....

  12. #12
    *Co-Owner - Admin* bowhunter1023's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    SE Ohio
    Posts
    29,326
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by matt hougan View Post
    I am certianly not looking for any deabtes on which gun to shoot over another. I just have an opinion. My 1st opinion is sell or cut in half any CVA rifles you may have immediatley and throw it in the trash.
    See man, I consider this complete nonsense. I've been shooting CVA's for a decade now. My old Optima has easily had 200+ 150 grain charges fired through it. My current Elite, probably 100. The Wolf I owned was a great gun. Shit happens in the manufacturing process and CVA was a "victim" of that and unfortunately, so were some consumers.

    You don't have to look for an argument when your opinion is that strong. Just sayin...
    "And a country boy is all I'll ever be..."

    Live to hunt. Hunt to live. It's just how I live...

  13. #13
    Yeah, this isnt a Ford vs. Chevy debate. There are just way too many tragic addidents for my liking. If you have a choice between this rifle or that rifle why would I choose one that has a very long and documented track record of tregedy....? That makes no sense.
    Your actions speak so loudly, I cannot hear what you say....

  14. #14
    *Co-Owner - Admin* bowhunter1023's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    SE Ohio
    Posts
    29,326
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by matt hougan View Post
    Yeah, this isnt a Ford vs. Chevy debate. There are just way too many tragic addidents for my liking. If you have a choice between this rifle or that rifle why would I choose one that has a very long and documented track record of tregedy....? That makes no sense.
    That's logic I can agree with. But throwing the entire lot under the bus for a bad batch along the lines is not for everyone. We take calculated risks in everything we do each day and with every purchase we make. I feel comfortable with the idea that CVA is a FULLY aware of the issues they have had and that they would not be putting products in the hands of consumers in 2012 that were likely to fail. Being a cautious and educated consumer is very important and something I always try to remember. At the end of the day, you have to make the decision you are comfortable with. I had plenty of loads through my CVA's before I was made aware of their issues. That being said, I believe if it was going to happen, it would have. So I'm confident in my weapons and that not all CVA are made to explode...
    "And a country boy is all I'll ever be..."

    Live to hunt. Hunt to live. It's just how I live...

  15. #15
    Here is one of the problems with CVA's or any other MZ in my opinion..........the guys shooting them.

    CVA had or has a barrel problem with imported barrels that were not proof tested, a bunch failed. However I don't think anyone knows if they all failed under normal expected pressures or severely increased pressures.

    MOST MZ's today if they are double loaded with powder, bullets, ram rods left in place, barrel obstructions, bullet not fully seated, excessive loads, can and many do explode. Who knows how many of these CVA failures were realized due to operator error. When CVA offered barrels that exhibited such low pressure capabilities any error would just magnify the barrel design problem. I do not believe that there was a manufacturing problem, rather a barrel design and proof testing problem

    Make no mistake, CVA is not the only MZ manufacturer to have occurrences of failure, CVA just had a bunch because they imported barrels that were substandard.

    It is soooooooooo easy to make a mistake with a MZ

  16. #16
    Senior Member ohio mossy oak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Licking,Perry,Muskigum counties border
    Posts
    6,931
    Hey Matt you forgot to mention that CVA has been the number1 selling muzzle loader for a decade or more.Just throwing that out there
    Just sayin................

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by ohio mossy oak View Post
    Hey Matt you forgot to mention that CVA has been the number1 selling muzzle loader for a decade or more.Just throwing that out there
    And Bill Clinton was elected twice.... Whats your point? LOL

    You may be right. Two rules of thumb that have served me well over the years.

    1. Never date chicks that can bench press more than you
    2. Never buy a gun at walmart hanging on an end cap in clam shell packaging

    Sorry, I coulnd't resist. I don't care what pople shoot, just be careful. Know what you doing and always spend good money on stuff that could kill you.
    Your actions speak so loudly, I cannot hear what you say....

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •