WARNING: New Armi Sport Enfield Stocks...

My goodness. It certainly is graphic proof of the huge irony of our dependence on an Italian supplier for the single most necessary and single most expensive product we must have to participate in our uniquely American hobby. I don't understand why an American gun manufacturer hasn't seen our niche market as a great advertising/marketing opportunity, even if the product made for us might be a "loss-leader" for their other products. Surely most CW reenactors purchase modern rifles, pistols, and shotguns and a fair number of us would buy them from the same firm that makes our black powder muskets from a sense of gratitude or brand loyalty. Moreover, everything but wine costs more in Italy, usually a lot more. Surely an American firm could make Enfields for less than it cost the Chiappa's to make them in Italy and ship them here. Italy ain't China or Pakistan or India. How did our whole longarms market wind up in the hands of one or two foreign companies that don't understand our hobby, don't care about US history or our hobby, and are in a country that costs more than here to make the darned things. I really don't get it. Where's today's Sam Colt or Henry Ford or Cyrus McCormick when you need him? We need some guy who has gotten rich off computers or video games and has a history fetish to do a start-up here and bring our market home. Not a rant exactly, but close. Sorry about that.

Phil McBride
The Alamo Rifles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craig L Barry

In case anybody thought I overstated the Armi Sport stock changes...Doesn't really "look" much like a Civil War Enfield does it?

---

Gee. I'm a girl, and I know That's Just Wrong.

Just got a response from Ms. S.Chiappa regarding the picture I sent over. I am convinced even she saw the glaring mistake and she is expediting me one of their older contour Enfields so I can defarb it and send it back to be used as the new prototype. They have a new batch of Enfields using the older contour stock being made right now to be sent over here in about 40 days. While these contours will be too big, at least they can be defarbed down and won't look so ridiculous as the onese here now. I have to say that I have been pleased with all the responses I got from the Armi-Sport people during the past few weeks when I first started offering suggestions and literally begging them to stop the presses before they ruined their Enfield. Instead of being rebuked for my work defarbing their guns they were all interested in learning what I am doing and one even said it was a great thing for me to do to make their customers more pleased with their products. I had half expected to be warned against modifying their guns but instead have been openly received. They even seemed to worry that if they do all that I am asking that it will hurt my business, but I really don't care all that much about that so long as we can get a better product available. Besides there are several thousand older Enfields here I can work on for years to come.

Quote:

---

I am convinced even she saw the glaring mistake and she is expediting me one of their older contour Enfields so I can defarb it and send it back to be used as the new prototype.

---

No slight intended against your excellent work, but, Gah! Again why don't they invest in an original to work from, rather than base their reproduction on a reproduction?

Steve

Hallo!

IMHO....

They don't have to. We teach them how to treat us.

Over four decades we continue to buy tens, no, hundreds of thousands of what the Italian companies make and send us to buy. By and large, the "complainers" and those "who know the differences" and "to whom it matters" are a very small minority.

And the one time, "they" (Pedersoli) partialy listened, what did they do? They made minor changes but focused the larger portion of the retooling (always a significant factor in production and in this case why ding profits by changing the Cash Cow too much?) for European competitive shooter and the competitive shooters of the N-SSA- both a minority compared to American reenactors.

IMHO still,it would take a major retooling to set up for a cloning of an original "Springfield" or "Enfield," and with our History when it comes to reproduction arms (see above) I see the Italians as reluctannt to so utterly reinvent their wheel when the profits keep flowing in hand over fist for almost half a century now.

Part of me wonders why the Italians do not replace worn out machinery with tooling and production that is based on originals and not based on reproductions (teh generational copying of reproductions of reproductions rather than reproductions of originals)? But then I think it is because replacing pieces parts of an assemby line with pieces and parts is far far cheaper than replacing whole machines and processes.

And some things make no sense... why would Pedersoli replace the stock wood on British Enfields with incorrect American Black Walnut? What was "lost in the translation?" One pays the "premium" for the new Pedersoli line only to have to de-farb the gun and de-farb it with a major hassle and expense of a new stock??

And this may sound odd coming from me, a firearm heretic and minority speaker...

The minority of our Hobby that fusses a "little more" to make what is offerred "better," are actually being served by the artistry, magic, and skills of lads like Herr Todd who have wonderfully stepped up to the plate to provide impressive "de-farb" services to the hobby minority that wants/needs them.
I think that that is somewhat of a Catch 22. Meaning, while it serves the more "authentic" minded minority in our Hobby, in some ways to takes away "pressure" (real or imagined) from the Italians to more closely "copy" or even come closer to reproducing or "cloning an original." But as long as the Cash Cow is alive and well, the "after market" for de-farbing serves those that want it, and the out-of-the-box offerings will continue to see lads lining up to buy them "as is" for as long as there is Hobby and a Market to sell them to.

I realize that sounds or reads more negatively or critically than I intend. Or that I am knocking Herr Todd, other defarb services, or my own de-farb work going back to the late 1980's... which I am not in any way. Or, that I am not happy for the changes we are about to see or see rolling out from Pedersoli.
But the Italian Cash Cow and its history are two realities we seem unable to escape and am fated to ignore or try to make silk purses out of sow's ears. And we even have developed a Reenacting Culture where we "make allowances" and exceptions for firearms that many segments of the CW Community no long make for clothing, gear, impressions, and even activities at events.

One uon a time, there was a PBS series whose one episode centered around "The Coming Asunder of Jimmy Bright." A "filler" was talking about changing the "machine." But the problem was that people were caught up in the machine.

IMHO, the problem of firearms is just that. We are all caught up in the machine, and cannot turn it off to change or fix it.

We have met the enemy, and he is us.

Others' mileage will vary...

Curt
Civil War Complainer Mess

Quote:

---

And the one time, "they" (Pedersoli) partialy listened, what did they do? They made minor changes but focused the larger portion of the retooling (always a significant factor in production and in this case why ding profits by changing the Cash Cow too much?) for European competitive shooter and the competitive shooters of the N-SSA- both a minority compared to American reenactors.

---

I don't claim to be an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but from what I've read and seen, I don't think this is really a fair statement.

Yes, it is true that competition shooters will first and foremost demand competition accuracy out of their weapons, and Pedersoli appears to have done that with their new Springfield and Enfield muskets. They also demand durable reliability, and the jury remains out on that score.

But it seems to me that the majority of the changes made to the new Enfield were done entirely for the reenacting crowd, as they were all aesthetic changes made to make the reproduction more closely follow a third-generation Enfield instead of the fourth-generation they copied from a copy originally.

New Palmer barrel bands. More-correct square-eared lock washers. A beefier hammer. More-correct markings on the lock plate. More-correct sling hardware. Inspection marks on the barrel. A cartouche on the stock. A more-correctly contoured barrel. A more-correctly contoured stock.

All of these things are aesthetic changes that probably don't matter much to most competition shooters but matter a lot to reenactors.

Steve

Well, the recent alterations they came up with were indeed copied off an original they say is at their Dayton, OH site. In truth, any direct copy today of a 150 year old original will be incorrect due to wood shrinkage. Also, it is practically impossible for them to proof barrels made as thin as they were then. The tech I talked with at Dayton said they had tried that and could not get the barrels to reliably proof. We are stuck with heavier barrels by just a tad at least. Just why some of their recent stocks are swamped between bands (shrinkage and wear I guess) and narrowed modestly around the wrist vs. others that are swamped more and have that tiny wrist is a perplexing issue. Evidenly they are working the copy carvers without a master and are just eyeballing it allowing for the differences. Their quality control guy is evidently really bad or just totally ignorant of Enfields. Hopefully I can get the dimensions to where they likely were on originals when new and they can make a master. This will allow them to use their current barrel, trigger, buttplate, etc. that using an original would not allow.

Now that you mention it, I believe I remember someone (Balazas?) saying that even Pedersoli's barrel was heavier than authentic due to modern proofing issues.

Is there anyone who makes custom barrels with the snail forged into the barrel as originals?

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd Watts

Well, the recent alterations they came up with were indeed copied off an original they say is at their Dayton, OH site. In truth, any direct copy today of a 150 year old original will be incorrect due to wood shrinkage. Also, it is practically impossible for them to proof barrels made as thin as they were then. The tech I talked with at Dayton said they had tried that and could not get the barrels to reliably proof. We are stuck with heavier barrels by just a tad at least. Just why some of their recent stocks are swamped between bands (shrinkage and wear I guess) and narrowed modestly around the wrist vs. others that are swamped more and have that tiny wrist is a perplexing issue. Evidenly they are working the copy carvers without a master and are just eyeballing it allowing for the differences. Their quality control guy is evidently really bad or just totally ignorant of Enfields. Hopefully I can get the dimensions to where they likely were on originals when new and they can make a master. This will allow them to use their current barrel, trigger, buttplate, etc. that using an original would not allow.

---

To clarify...Todd is referring to Armi Sport here, not Pedersoli.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd Watts

Just got a response from Ms. S.Chiappa regarding the picture I sent over. I am convinced even she saw the glaring mistake and she is expediting me one of their older contour Enfields so I can defarb it and send it back to be used as the new prototype. They have a new batch of Enfields using the older contour stock being made right now to be sent over here in about 40 days. While these contours will be too big, at least they can be defarbed down and won't look so ridiculous as the onese here now. I have to say that I have been pleased with all the responses I got from the Armi-Sport people during the past few weeks when I first started offering suggestions and literally begging them to stop the presses before they ruined their Enfield. Instead of being rebuked for my work defarbing their guns they were all interested in learning what I am doing and one even said it was a great thing for me to do to make their customers more pleased with their products. I had half expected to be warned against modifying their guns but instead have been openly received. They even seemed to worry that if they do all that I am asking that it will hurt my business, but I really don't care all that much about that so long as we can get a better product available. Besides there are several thousand older Enfields here I can work on for years to come.

---

Oh, the Armi Sport could be a whole lot better and still require some de-farb work. Todd Watts did some work on my Pedersoli which is pretty darn good right out of the box. I had a list of things for him to do like lighten the trigger pull and restamp the proof marks. Pedersoli put period proof marks on the barrel, but instead of the provisional (bottom) proof mark being "BP" they used "DP" for D.Pedersoli. Most would not notice that bit of farbery, but it bothered me. I fully trust that whatever improvements are made by Armi Sport, they will leave a lot left to be done. Say they do another Birmingham version...a number of guys want London guns like the Barnett, etc.

Todd will never run out of defarb work, that is a non-issue. The bigger issue is too much work, it takes forever to get one done.