Chiappa Muzzleloaders

TruthTellers · October 25, 2017, 12:03 AM

I've had in the deep and vast canyons of my mind an 1842 Springfield Musket replica and Chiappa seems to make one that's the best quality for a decent price of under 900 dollars. Chiappa has other cartridge guns I've been interested in, but their muzzleloaders I've never really looked in to.

Anybody here own or handled one? How are they or how did they look?

Hawg · October 25, 2017, 09:28 AM

I've got a P53 Enfield made in IIRC 1980. Don't feel like getting it out to check. It's an excellent shooter but it doesn't match the originals for looks. There are some differences, some glaring and some subtle. The most glaring is the rear sights. They look nothing like an original sight.

maillemaker · October 25, 2017, 11:19 AM

I shoot an Armisport/Chiappa 1842 smoothbore in N-SSA competition. Aside from having the stock glass bedded, it is bone stock. It is a fantastic shooter. I routinely take medals with it at local competitions and made my way to 10th place at my first ever National competition in Expert class (they make you shoot Expert your first time until you are qualified).

I shoot an RCBS .678 round ball, rasped with my new ball roller (you can also roll them between two files), and then I double-dip them in Xlox (a Lee Alox alternative). I shoot it with 70 grains 3F Goex.

I just ordered another one last week to try and retro-vert into an M1840 conversion. Lodgewood sent me the wrong gun - they sent me a Chiappa P1853 Enfield instead. I opened it up, and it is very nice in appearance. I like the fatter barrel bands better than the Pedersoli. Also they have also adapted the more-correct square-eared lock washers. I forgot to check the sling hardware to see if they fixed that also. But it looked nice to me from my brief inspection. I believe Pedersoli re-tooling their Enfield made Chiappa up their game also.

Steve

Hawg · October 25, 2017, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Also they have also adapted the more-correct square-eared lock washers.

Mine made in 1980 has square eared lock plate washers.

maillemaker · October 25, 2017, 05:44 PM

I did not know that. I thought everyone had copied Parker Hale who copied the Type IV Enfield.

Steve

Hawg · October 25, 2017, 10:28 PM

On mine the barrel bands are good but the sling swivels are wrong, the bolster is shaped wrong, the hammer is too small and not contoured right, lock markings are wrong, the stock contour behind the lock is wrong, the rear sight is wrong, the trigger is wrong. That's all I can think of right now.

TruthTellers · October 26, 2017, 07:46 PM

Hawg,

I don't care if the rear sight isn't faithful to the original. If anything, I've found that sights on 100+ year old guns or reproductions that use sights that remain faithful to the originals are horrible and make shooting them well difficult to accomplish. To me, looks are irrelevant because what makes me interested in the M1842 is that it's the only percussion fired single barrel smoothbore that I can find that's currently produced by major manufacturers. If the Chiappa is a nice shooter and is quality, then that's all I need to hear.

maillemaker · October 26, 2017, 08:18 PM

Quote:

M1842 is that it's the only percussion fired single barrel smoothbore that I can find that's currently produced by major manufacturers.

Pedersoli also makes a so-called Colt Conversion of the M1816. However, as I understand it is not a very historically-accurate copy. The stock is from a 1777 Charleville.

Steve

l.cutler · October 27, 2017, 03:37 AM

I have the 1842 by Chiappa, very nice gun. It is supposed to be one of the most authentic repros made.

Hawg · October 27, 2017, 09:04 AM

Quote:

I've found that sights on 100+ year old guns or reproductions that use sights that remain faithful to the originals are horrible and make shooting them well difficult to accomplish.

They will make you a better shot.

TruthTellers · October 27, 2017, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawg

They will make you a better shot.

Sorry but the sights on a Mauser C96 or an 1851 Navy are nearly useless and do nothing to improve my skills.

Hawg · October 27, 2017, 11:56 AM

I like the sights on my 51 and it's pretty accurate.

roashooter · October 27, 2017, 01:42 PM

I like the sights on my Old Army's...

Hawg · October 27, 2017, 05:44 PM

Quote:

I like the sights on my Old Army's...

That's modern tho.

roashooter · October 27, 2017, 05:48 PM

Quote:

That's modern tho.

when did a grove in the frame become modern?

Hawg · October 27, 2017, 08:44 PM

I assumed you were talking about adjustable sights. Still a pretty wide notch.

BP_Fanatic · October 30, 2017, 11:39 AM

I also have the M1842 by Chiappa, and it is a very nice gun. Also I have a Armi Sport/Chiappa 1858 Naval Pattern Enfield which is my second ML gun I ever bought. The price was good, look is nice, although not completely authentic, but it shoots horribly. I have tired different minie ball variations and loads, but I'm not able to hit target consistently with it. So I got later Pedersoli 1858 Enfield which is damn accurate.

TruthTellers · October 30, 2017, 04:53 PM

I haven't heard anyone say anything negative about Chiappa muzzleloaders, so my confidence of them has gone up.

Now I just have to decide whether the smoothbore 1842 is better than the Pedersoli double barrel 12 gauge.

Hawg · October 30, 2017, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Now I just have to decide whether the smoothbore 1842 is better than the Pedersoli double barrel 12 gauge.

It depends on what you want to do with it. The Pedersoli is very light. At least mine is but it's a pre choke. IMO the newer ones with the choke aren't going to handle round balls well.

TruthTellers · October 31, 2017, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawg

It depends on what you want to do with it. The Pedersoli is very light. At least mine is but it's a pre choke. IMO the newer ones with the choke aren't going to handle round balls well.

That solves that question then. My goal is to find a percussion smoothbore that can handle shot and fire a round ball fairly well out to 75-100 yards.

The Pedersoli appeals to me because it has two barrels and is more common, but the Chiappa has a rear sight, so further out it will be easier to hit targets with round ball.

I could saw the barrel on the Pedersoli back to where the choke is removed and turn it into a cylinder bore, but even then I'd still be stuck with no rear sight.

Hawg · October 31, 2017, 12:23 AM

I have tried .690 balls in my Pedersoli and at 25 yards it shoots low with both 80 and 100 grains of powder plus it has about a 4 inch difference in POI between the two barrels. I didn't do much testing because I didn't feel it was worthwhile working up a ball load for it. With shot it's a whole nother ballgame tho. The thing I like about it is it feels and handles almost exactly like my Belgian double made in the 1850's.

maillemaker · October 31, 2017, 08:32 AM

Quote:

but the Chiappa has a rear sight

Only the rifled version of their 1842 has a rear sight. The smoothbore does not.

Steve

44 Dave · October 31, 2017, 03:55 PM

My Pedersoli is a 1975 and it is chocked .

October 25, 2017, 12:03 AM	#1
TruthTellers Senior Member Join Date: October 22, 2016 Posts: 3,883	Chiappa Muzzleloaders I've had in the deep and vast canyons of my mind an 1842 Springfield Musket replica and Chiappa seems to make one that's the best quality for a decent price of under 900 dollars. Chiappa has other cartridge guns I've been interested in, but their muzzleloaders I've never really looked in to. Anybody here own or handled one? How are they or how did they look? __________________ "We always think there's gonna be more time... then it runs out."

October 25, 2017, 05:44 PM	#5
maillemaker Senior Member Join Date: August 30, 2010 Posts: 1,635	I did not know that. I thought everyone had copied Parker Hale who copied the Type IV Enfield. Steve Last edited by maillemaker; October 26, 2017 at 09:36 AM.

October 26, 2017, 07:46 PM	#7
TruthTellers Senior Member Join Date: October 22, 2016 Posts: 3,883	Hawg, I don't care if the rear sight isn't faithful to the original. If anything, I've found that sights on 100+ year old guns or reproductions that use sights that remain faithful to the originals are horrible and make shooting them well difficult to accomplish. To me, looks are irrelevant because what makes me interested in the M1842 is that it's the only percussion fired single barrel smoothbore that I can find that's currently produced by major manufacturers. If the Chiappa is a nice shooter and is quality, then that's all I need to hear. __________________ "We always think there's gonna be more time... then it runs out."

October 30, 2017, 04:53 PM	#18
TruthTellers Senior Member Join Date: October 22, 2016 Posts: 3,883	I haven't heard anyone say anything negative about Chiappa muzzleloaders, so my confidence of them has gone up. Now I just have to decide whether the smoothbore 1842 is better than the Pedersoli double barrel 12 gauge. __________________ "We always think there's gonna be more time... then it runs out."

October 25, 2017, 09:28 AM	#2
Hawg Senior Member Join Date: September 8, 2007 Location: Mississippi Posts: 16,188	I've got a P53 Enfield made in IIRC 1980. Don't feel like getting it out to check. It's an excellent shooter but it doesn't match the originals for looks. There are some differences, some glaring and some subtle. The most glaring is the rear sights. They look nothing like an original sight.

October 25, 2017, 11:19 AM	#3
maillemaker Senior Member Join Date: August 30, 2010 Posts: 1,635	I shoot an Armisport/Chiappa 1842 smoothbore in N-SSA competition. Aside from having the stock glass bedded, it is bone stock. It is a fantastic shooter. I routinely take medals with it at local competitions and made my way to 10th place at my first ever National competition in Expert class (they make you shoot Expert your first time until you are qualified). I shoot an RCBS .678 round ball, rasped with my new ball roller (you can also roll them between two files), and then I double-dip them in Xlox (a Lee Alox alternative). I shoot it with 70 grains 3F Goex. I just ordered another one last week to try and retro-vert into an M1840 conversion. Lodgewood sent me the wrong gun - they sent me a Chiappa P1853 Enfield instead. I opened it up, and it is very nice in appearance. I like the fatter barrel bands better than the Pedersoli. Also they have also adapted the more-correct square-eared lock washers. I forgot to check the sling hardware to see if they fixed that also. But it looked nice to me from my brief inspection. I believe Pedersoli re-tooling their Enfield made Chiappa up their game also. Steve

October 25, 2017, 10:28 PM	#6
Hawg Senior Member Join Date: September 8, 2007 Location: Mississippi Posts: 16,188	On mine the barrel bands are good but the sling swivels are wrong, the bolster is shaped wrong, the hammer is too small and not contoured right, lock markings are wrong, the stock contour behind the lock is wrong, the rear sight is wrong, the trigger is wrong. That's all I can think of right now.

October 27, 2017, 03:37 AM	#9
l.cutler Senior Member Join Date: October 18, 2005 Posts: 275	I have the 1842 by Chiappa, very nice gun. It is supposed to be one of the most authentic repros made.

October 27, 2017, 11:56 AM	#12
Hawg Senior Member Join Date: September 8, 2007 Location: Mississippi Posts: 16,188	I like the sights on my 51 and it's pretty accurate.

October 27, 2017, 01:42 PM	#13
roashooter Junior member Join Date: December 24, 2010 Posts: 508	I like the sights on my Old Army's...

October 27, 2017, 08:44 PM	#16
Hawg Senior Member Join Date: September 8, 2007 Location: Mississippi Posts: 16,188	I assumed you were talking about adjustable sights. Still a pretty wide notch.

October 30, 2017, 11:39 AM	#17
BP_Fanatic Junior Member Join Date: August 26, 2017 Posts: 10	I also have the M1842 by Chiappa, and it is a very nice gun. Also I have a Armi Sport/Chiappa 1858 Naval Pattern Enfield which is my second ML gun I ever bought. The price was good, look is nice, although not completely authentic, but it shoots horribly. I have tired different minie ball variations and loads, but I'm not able to hit target consistently with it. So I got later Pedersoli 1858 Enfield which is damn accurate.

October 31, 2017, 12:23 AM	#21
Hawg Senior Member Join Date: September 8, 2007 Location: Mississippi Posts: 16,188	I have tried .690 balls in my Pedersoli and at 25 yards it shoots low with both 80 and 100 grains of powder plus it has about a 4 inch difference in POI between the two barrels. I didn't do much testing because I didn't feel it was worthwhile working up a ball load for it. With shot it's a whole nother ballgame tho. The thing I like about it is it feels and handles almost exactly like my Belgian double made in the 1850's.

October 31, 2017, 03:55 PM	#23
44 Dave Senior Member Join Date: February 24, 2013 Posts: 584	My Pedersoli is a 1975 and it is chocked .