Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 109

Thread: WARNING: New Armi Sport Enfield Stocks...

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Portland, TN
    Posts
    101

    Default

    Armi is about to start making the corrected stock (they say) so you could theoretically gripe to them and replace it but who-knows what they will say. Some of them are swamped but not too terribly badly but there were a couple I saw on the rack at Blockade Runner that I had the owner actually pull off the rack and send back because the handle/wrist was literally spooky-thin. No kidding that most 2 year olds could have wrapped their hands completely around them! It was a wonder the tip of the triggerguard's tang screws did not poke through.

    Like Craig said though, de-farbing cannot correct this problem. I can remove wood all day long but can't glue it back on. If you got one and it really bothers you, your best bet is to sell it as demand goes up closer to G'burg to someone and buy another one but you may then miss a big event yourself.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Huntsville
    Posts
    612

    Default

    This has to be a huge blow to Armisport sales. I would not buy an Armisport Enfield through mail order right now for anything - who knows what you will get and who knows how long it will take the old stock to get out of the pipeline?
    Steve Sheldon

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Augusta, Georgia
    Posts
    499

    Default

    What is astonishing to me is that, for the investment of $3000-$6000, a company like ArmiSport, Pedersoli, or ANYONE can buy a high-condition original as a "pattern piece" and just reproduce that. No need to talk to experts, get opinions, etc. Just buy the real deal and copy it. Why's that so hard?

    While that price may be salty for us "average Joe's", its nothing for a mid-to-large sized company... especially when that investment would secure them a competitive advantage.

    ????
    John Wickett
    Carpetbagger

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,700

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyHallVols View Post
    What is astonishing to me is that, for the investment of $3000-$6000, a company like ArmiSport, Pedersoli, or ANYONE can buy a high-condition original as a "pattern piece" and just reproduce that. No need to talk to experts, get opinions, etc. Just buy the real deal and copy it. Why's that so hard?

    While that price may be salty for us "average Joe's", its nothing for a mid-to-large sized company... especially when that investment would secure them a competitive advantage.

    ????
    That is essentially what Pedersoli did, they ended up buying a short butt version of the P53 and used the data from my BSAT W. Sargant P53 for the Birmingham furniture, bands, barrel proof and lock plate markings. They copied my missing round washers from the ends of my barrel band screws, I know that. Perhaps also some other measurements were used. They addressed the initial cosmetic shortcomings and some other issues such as the stout trigger pull present on the proto-type which is in my possession at the present time.

    Watts fixed up the few things it needed, and added Thomas Turner maker's marks. Todd does what he wants it seems, as opposed to whatever you might instruct him to do, at least for me. He added a rack number to the butt plate tang, which mimics the last four digits of the modern serial number. This I am grateful for as it will suffice for the National Battlefield Park historic weapons demos now that they check serial numbers and mine are hidden under the barrel.

    The broader point is, the Pedersoli Enfield is priced competitively with the Armi Sport version. There is no comparision in terms of quality. I have no idea what Armi Sport was thinking when they so badly botched their Enfield "anniversary edition." I do know Todd Watts sent them a correctly proportioned and marked P53 stock to copy, but I have still not seen one off the assembly line to know how close they got it. I would be disappointed but not be surprised if it were screwed up in some new and different way. They have a knack for that.

    I still have no idea how Armi Sport got their US 1842 as nearly correct as they did when they released it back in 1996. It still stands head and shoulders above all other reproduction Civil War muskets in terms of historical feature accuracy. They obviously copied an original to create that model as the trigger bow is slightly out of round. I have to assume the unusually good reproduction of the 1842 was either random chance or accidental.
    Craig L Barry

    Author: The Civil War Musket: A Handbook for Historical Accuracy

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Portland, TN
    Posts
    101

    Default

    You know me Craig, unless you give me specific written instructions those wild hairs on my butt take over and I want to try new things. I get tired of the same dang marks Enfield after Enfield.
    I talked to a guy at Armi Sport in Dayton, OH originally when discussing the swamped stocks and he said they exactly duplicated an original they had studied. So I ended up talking to S. Chiappa abt it and she said the same thing and wondered whether they may have gotten hold of a bad original. I figured what they had was a model that had been badly handled and the wood literally worn off between the bands where the person handled it. But, if they use the stock I sent them they should be producing very nice off the shelf Enfields starting in April. Then again, we've been disappointed in the past by all of the makers that just can't seem to do what little ol small time gunsmiths can.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Warsaw. Mo
    Posts
    94

    Default

    Well mudd! I would have bought the '42 (I preferred it from viewing period photos) but our unit uses the Enfield. I had one before my college venture forced me to make sacrifices and thought there was something different about this one when I got it out of the box. Well, no more purchases that I cannot see and hold before throwing down scarce funds for me! I sold my old trusty flintlock trade gun to make this purchase dangitt.

    Bushwhacker

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,700

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Todd Watts View Post
    You know me Craig, unless you give me specific written instructions those wild hairs on my butt take over and I want to try new things. I get tired of the same dang marks Enfield after Enfield.
    I talked to a guy at Armi Sport in Dayton, OH originally when discussing the swamped stocks and he said they exactly duplicated an original they had studied. So I ended up talking to S. Chiappa abt it and she said the same thing and wondered whether they may have gotten hold of a bad original. I figured what they had was a model that had been badly handled and the wood literally worn off between the bands where the person handled it. But, if they use the stock I sent them they should be producing very nice off the shelf Enfields starting in April. Then again, we've been disappointed in the past by all of the makers that just can't seem to do what little ol small time gunsmiths can.
    It is the "written instructions" that you ignore most. It's all good though. Like I said, the rack # mimicking the last digits of the actual serial number saves grief at check-in time with the rangers. But with the JS Achor and rack numbers it just gives it a decidedly Confederate "state of Georgia" feel. I know this is probably blasphemy to CW reenactors, but sometimes less is more where the stamps and maker's marks are concerned. We have had that discussion more than once.

    If Armi Chiappa copied an original P53 to come up with their 150th anniversary Enfield, I should like very much to see some pictures of that particular original. The parts that are most out of proportion are not really hand holds, and even if so they would not wear that way. What I heard...and this makes more sense...is that they were "told" the stock was too thick overall and they should thin it down. However they had to use their existing barrel bands so it had to be "thick" through that area, then thin again. It appears Chiappa forgot to ask "where" it was too thick and being left to their imagination just made radical alterations to the wrist and forestock profile. I would be very unhappy if I had dropped the wad of cash one of these costs now and it came to my door with the wrist contours of a civilian fowling piece and a figure-8 shaped (swamped) forestock.

    Woo-hoo, can't wait to see what they make out of their "anniversary" edition US 1861. They could hardly make it worse than it is now, but I bet they do.
    Last edited by Craig L Barry; 03-13-2013 at 02:20 PM.
    Craig L Barry

    Author: The Civil War Musket: A Handbook for Historical Accuracy

  8. #38

    Default

    Hallo!

    I am skeptical.

    Granted, I have not received a tour of any Italian factory to see for myself, but my understanding is that they use essentially the same type or pprinciple stock replicating machines as was done in the 19th century just with 20th/21st century improvements moreorless.

    Meaning stock carving machines are fancy versions of the home hobby "dupli carvers" likle my old pard Steve Jencso used for his CW stock making business. In simple terms, you put what you want the machine to replicate on on side and the wood stock blanks/planks on the other and trace the original which then like a pantograph a cutter removes the excess blank wood leaving a replicate or duplicate of the original.

    So, yes, use a damaged, flawed, or incorrect "master" you get that cloned on your production stocks.

    When one can buy an excellent condition to minty condition original firearm for say $2,000-$5000ish, why use a flawed or damaged original? My cynical, jaded, and suspicious answer is that the Italians do not use originals as masters- they need to use mock-ups that match the shape, conour, and dimensions of their locsl, barrels, and furniture which are not copies of originals but rather approximations and parts sized up or down to faciitate production or bow to liabiity or safety concerns lile say bulked up barrels that then require larger stocks, etc.,

    But, with this "new generation" the Italians are supposedly, in response to numerous letters, photos, and compaints from "hobbyists" over the years, "looking" to make the repro's "closer" to the originals in many areas if only visually if not substantively.
    We shall see when the dust settles.

    Curt
    In gleichem Schritt und Tritt, Curt Schmidt

    Not a real Civil War reenactor, I only portray one on boards and fora.
    I do not portray a Civil War soldier, I merely interpret one.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,700

    Default

    Agree, but if they were using the stock duplicating machine then the stocks would all be the same. They aren't the same.
    Some are much more exaggerated in their contours and/or thinness through the wrist. BRI had a half doz of them and no two
    were identical...they were just all wrong in a similar way. See image in post 7. They either have multiple machines
    using different templates or they are hand shaping some of the stock contours after they come off the machine.

    Now if the Todd Watts gun stock that was sent to Italy is used, which should be more or less correct...then we should see for certain.
    On the bright side, maybe guys will start buying 1842s vs Enfields/US 1861s and we will start seeing adequate smoothbore musket
    representation in the ranks.
    Last edited by Craig L Barry; 03-13-2013 at 08:38 PM.
    Craig L Barry

    Author: The Civil War Musket: A Handbook for Historical Accuracy

  10. #40

    Default

    Hallo!

    "On the bright side, maybe guys will start buying 1842s vs Enfields/US 1861s and we will start seeing adequate smoothbore musket
    representation in the ranks."


    And end the dynasty of the usurper King Enfield! The king is dead.

    Long live the King!



    Curt
    Roundhead Mess
    In gleichem Schritt und Tritt, Curt Schmidt

    Not a real Civil War reenactor, I only portray one on boards and fora.
    I do not portray a Civil War soldier, I merely interpret one.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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