I've heard both, that they are super strong frames and can take it, and that they won't handle the load due to the lock-ups. What is the real weakness? The locking lugs or the frame? Bonanza thinks the locking lugs are not the issue, but the strength of the frame.

What did Searcy do to the BSS to make it strong enough?

My own opinion is that the action has to be strong enough not to open under recoil and the frame strong enough not the crack at the 90-degree bend at the water-tables. This might be achieved if you use a low pressure round like a 450 #2. My understanding of the stresses applied to doubles is that the frame is put under tension stress. Considering this the 90-degree bend at the water-tables is a stress riser and this is the place that a failure will occur. If you can add more metal at the bend, the frame should take the load; you can also reduce the pressure by said above low-pressure cartridge and achieve the same thing. One thing that can be done inexpensively is to highly polish the frame and round-out the 90-degree bend, this will significantly reduce the stress rising effect of the 90 angle and also reduce induced surface stress. All milling marks need to be polished out, and sharps edges removed; stress analysis 101.

Now if you were to convert one to a double inline muzzleloader, the load is now spread across more of the frame because the lugs are now going to take some of the applied rearward force. Food for thought.

The idea here with our project is to be able to take any decent quality double shotgun and using our engineering experience (aeronautical) figure out a way to strengthen the actions to handle a full NE load at a reasonable cost. I think with proper engineering it will.

Colorado