October 25, 2017, 12:03 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 22, 2016
Posts: 3,887
|
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, 09:28 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 16,189
|
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 |
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, 02:29 PM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 16,189
|
Quote:
Mine made in 1980 has square eared lock plate washers. |
|
October 25, 2017, 05:44 PM | #5 |
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 25, 2017, 10:28 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 16,189
|
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 26, 2017, 07:46 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 22, 2016
Posts: 3,887
|
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 26, 2017, 08:18 PM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 30, 2010
Posts: 1,635
|
Quote:
Steve |
|
October 27, 2017, 03:37 AM | #9 |
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, 09:04 AM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 16,189
|
Quote:
|
|
October 27, 2017, 10:34 AM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 22, 2016
Posts: 3,887
|
Sorry but the sights on a Mauser C96 or an 1851 Navy are nearly useless and do nothing to improve my skills.
__________________
"We always think there's gonna be more time... then it runs out."
|
October 27, 2017, 11:56 AM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 16,189
|
I like the sights on my 51 and it's pretty accurate.
|
October 27, 2017, 01:42 PM | #13 |
Junior member
Join Date: December 24, 2010
Posts: 508
|
I like the sights on my Old Army's...
|
October 27, 2017, 05:44 PM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 16,189
|
Quote:
|
|
October 27, 2017, 05:48 PM | #15 | |
Junior member
Join Date: December 24, 2010
Posts: 508
|
Quote:
|
|
October 27, 2017, 08:44 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 16,189
|
I assumed you were talking about adjustable sights. Still a pretty wide notch.
|
October 30, 2017, 11:39 AM | #17 |
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 30, 2017, 04:53 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 22, 2016
Posts: 3,887
|
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 30, 2017, 09:46 PM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 16,189
|
Quote:
|
|
October 31, 2017, 12:13 AM | #20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 22, 2016
Posts: 3,887
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
"We always think there's gonna be more time... then it runs out."
|
|
October 31, 2017, 12:23 AM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 16,189
|
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, 08:32 AM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 30, 2010
Posts: 1,635
|
Quote:
Steve |
|
October 31, 2017, 03:55 PM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 24, 2013
Posts: 584
|
My Pedersoli is a 1975 and it is chocked .
|
|
|