Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Springfield 1861 differences?

  1. #11

    Default

    Hallo!

    I would echo that.

    In my experience, when it comes to the fit, finish, and proper hardening or tempering of parts, Italian reproduction long arms and revolvers suffer from what appears to be random or indifferent levels of "Quality Control."
    As a result, one lad's experience might be great, the next lad's dismal, with the majority falling in between.

    This is particularly true when one looks to say revolvers used by reenactors versus the high volume live fire of Cowboy Action Shooting lads.

    I have a theory, unproven, that various importers actually contract for Italian reproductions that are priced on the price their businesses want/need to sell them for. Say, a Cabela's versus a Cimarron Firearms Company. AS a result, on average the QC of the lower priced guns even though from the same Italian maker had more "problems."
    A classic illustration of that was the first offerings of Pietta through Cabela's about 12-14 years ago (since remedied as it almost drive Pietta out of business). On-line boards at that time were full of complaints about out-of-box revolvers that would not cock, whose cylinders would not revolve, whose hands were gouging tracks in the cylinder, and even some still filled with metal shavings and oil.
    Cabela's had excellent customer service though, and exchanged any sent back. Some lads reported going through there or four before one worked.

    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.

  2. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RaiderANV View Post
    I've been a gunsmith working on these guns for better then 20 years. I compete in N-SSA live fire competitions and have worked on over a thousand guns easily. The statement of don't get AS for live fire or they are fine for blanks only is like Ford is Better then Chevy. There is nothing in my vast experience working on these guns that shows one is more or less prone then another to parts breakage or failures.
    I guess the problem with making these kind of comparisons is that there is no definitive information, it's all anecdotal. I could talk to a half dozen gunsmiths and get six different opinions on the same subject.

  3. #13

    Default

    Hallo!

    I would not want to belabor the point too much, as there is no reality just perception.

    To steal from Wiki:

    "In science, definitions of anecdotal evidence include:
    information that is not based on facts or careful study
    reports or observations of usually unscientific observers
    casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis
    information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically."

    But, in the Everyday World, we all base our anecdotes on experience. And our perceptions of what we see and experience. What NUG makes anecdotal evidence faulty is, by and large, it tends to be based upon a too small of sampling.

    Meaning, if I have owned one or two Italian reproduction Widgets and based on my education and experience they appear great, then all Italian reproductions are great. If the two I have experience with are crap, then all Italian repro's are crap.

    Where "anecdotal" is when the sampling becomes larger enough to give greater reliability and validity to the assertions or opinions we make based upon our personal experience. If the say one M1861 I owned that was mechanically perfect and did not misfire or fail in 10,000 rounds I would be favorably impressed and rightfully so. IF I were say an N-SSA or reenacting unit's "ordnance sergeant" or "armorer" and had replaced say 100 too smally vented "competition cones (nipples), 20 mainsprings for snapping in being too hard, or 15 for being too soft and not detonating caps, or a too soft bridle where on 10 the hard sear nose shaved off the notch, 5 had sear springs too weak to engage the sear in the tumbler notches, or 3 had tumbler notches in the wrong places so one could not get a cap under the hammer nose in half cock position (numbers here are illustrative not actual)... then my experience is going to shift the anecdote for me.
    Just as if I never had to work on a single Italian repro in 20 years for any reason, any time, shifts the scale in the other direction.

    A similar thing holds true for reproductions in general. Based upon one's knowledge and experience with original firearms, and one's personal or unit standards on the Sliding Scale of Imperfection... the more one knows about the original firearm being reproduced and reproduce din a Period or Period-looking manner.. the worse or "more bad" the Italian repro's are. As a result one lad will open the box and celebrate, while another lad may curse. When a part is wrongly shaped, or of the wrong size, or poorly finished and fitted compared to original arms that are supposed to be being reproduced- those things are not anecdotal, they are factual.

    In this case it is not so much "Others' mileage may vary.," it is rather "Others' mileage will vary."

    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.

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Curt-Heinrich Schmidt View Post
    Hallo!

    I would not want to belabor the point too much, as there is no reality just perception.

    To steal from Wiki:

    "In science, definitions of anecdotal evidence include:
    information that is not based on facts or careful study
    reports or observations of usually unscientific observers
    casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis
    information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically."

    But, in the Everyday World, we all base our anecdotes on experience. And our perceptions of what we see and experience. What NUG makes anecdotal evidence faulty is, by and large, it tends to be based upon a too small of sampling.

    Meaning, if I have owned one or two Italian reproduction Widgets and based on my education and experience they appear great, then all Italian reproductions are great. If the two I have experience with are crap, then all Italian repro's are crap.

    Where "anecdotal" is when the sampling becomes larger enough to give greater reliability and validity to the assertions or opinions we make based upon our personal experience. If the say one M1861 I owned that was mechanically perfect and did not misfire or fail in 10,000 rounds I would be favorably impressed and rightfully so. IF I were say an N-SSA or reenacting unit's "ordnance sergeant" or "armorer" and had replaced say 100 too smally vented "competition cones (nipples), 20 mainsprings for snapping in being too hard, or 15 for being too soft and not detonating caps, or a too soft bridle where on 10 the hard sear nose shaved off the notch, 5 had sear springs too weak to engage the sear in the tumbler notches, or 3 had tumbler notches in the wrong places so one could not get a cap under the hammer nose in half cock position (numbers here are illustrative not actual)... then my experience is going to shift the anecdote for me.
    Just as if I never had to work on a single Italian repro in 20 years for any reason, any time, shifts the scale in the other direction.

    A similar thing holds true for reproductions in general. Based upon one's knowledge and experience with original firearms, and one's personal or unit standards on the Sliding Scale of Imperfection... the more one knows about the original firearm being reproduced and reproduce din a Period or Period-looking manner.. the worse or "more bad" the Italian repro's are. As a result one lad will open the box and celebrate, while another lad may curse. When a part is wrongly shaped, or of the wrong size, or poorly finished and fitted compared to original arms that are supposed to be being reproduced- those things are not anecdotal, they are factual.

    In this case it is not so much "Others' mileage may vary.," it is rather "Others' mileage will vary."

    Curt
    Based on much the same logic I stand by my original statement regarding Pedersoli being the better musket.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,678

    Default

    Objectively speaking, Pedersoli makes a better product across the board. The broader question, as I have answered queries along these lines at least 100x in various forums...Why the US 1861? There are better choices.
    Craig L Barry

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

  6. #16

    Default

    Hallo!

    Due to "stricter" standards for fit, finish, and metal treatments (with exceptions such as cone threading and rifling) done to Pedersoli's standards, Pedersoli does a much much better job of building Euroarms M1861's than Euroarms did.

    Ah, for a Pedersoli Austrian M1854 "Lorenz " instead of their choice t make M1857 "Mauser" (M1857 Württemberger RM) for the European community. But then we would continue the eternal discussions about it being over sized and clunky as it would undoubtedly be.



    Curt
    If wishes were horses, we'd all ride 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
  •