Loyalist Arms Fusil

[Treestalker]

Does anyone have experience or comment on Loyalist Arms or their products, specifically their Fusil de Chasse? Thanks, George.

 

[tenngun]

Looks good in photos,the only one i have seen in life was bulky very heavy. But that's been just one :idunno:

 

[nwtradegun]

they are made in india. no replacement parts, death traps, you can get a used pedrosoli or from one of the american builders for about the same cost.

 

[JohnN]

He asked about a fusil de chasse which I don't see listed on the Pederasoli web page so getting a used one might be tough.They are Indian muskets but they are not death traps, there are thousands of them out there in use. Might be right on the replacement parts but Loyalist seems to have pretty good customer service. They are rough compared to custom made guns and should almost be treated as a kit to be re-finished. If you have the money get one made here.

 

[tenngun]

Middlesex village arms offers a fusil , and on there web site talks of their service, I have never done business and can't vouch for them but have heard good and bad things about them. Prices are about the same ... you do get what you pay for

 

[Grenadier1758]

Right now I would have to say that the Loyalist Arms Long Land Pattern British have proven reliable and acceptable for my unit's SYW impression. The guns are heavier than the Narragansett (US made Rifle Shoppe ? parts) Long Land Pattern.

There have been some parts issues, but I have had issues with American made locks as well. I know of one musket with a bent barrel, but none that I have seen have been unsafe.

Aside from the weight issue, I think you are more likely to get a historically appropriate musket from Loyalist Arms than from other makers.

The Rifle Shoppe has a great catalog. They are notorious for long delays in shipping. That being said, they offer the best choices in the market.

 

[Paul63]

Been looking serious at a Fusil myself and after lots of research Im really liking the Sitting fox kits. With quality components and a bit of DIY elbow grease and time, they are just what I'm looking for.
I can't speak of the quality of Loyalist Arms but for the little bit of money difference, work and peace of mind, I'm going with manufacturer's I know and trust.

 

[Treestalker]

Thanks for the feedback guys, I like the Loyalist fusil because it fits and the price is good, even if I have to rework it. Also locally available new in hand. BUT, I can wait a while; you never know what might show up :grin: George.

 

[nwtradegun]

sorry meant to say (instead you can get). a nwtradegun from Pederasoli

 

[Firelock937]

I have two muskets from Loyalist. No problems with either one. You can look up previous threads and see all of the arguments pro and con for the Indian made guns, but I would consider Loyalist at the top of the list if you go that route.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I have the Loyalist Arms Trade Gun. It's heavier than something stocked in maple, but it kills squirrels well. I also have a Pedersoli "trade gun" and it looks "trade gun-ish", but it came with problems. The frizzen was improperly hardened and the ramrod thimbles were so badly drilled in the stock that one broke out when the ramrod was replaced. So much for Pedersoli's superior quality :shake: . Both shoot very well and will take game.

LD

 

[sooter76]

Been looking serious at a Fusil myself and after lots of research Im really liking the Sitting fox kits. With quality components and a bit of DIY elbow grease and time, they are just what I'm looking for.
I can't speak of the quality of Loyalist Arms but for the little bit of money difference, work and peace of mind, I'm going with manufacturer's I know and trust.

I ran across their site the other day... Had never heard of them before that. What's the word on their quality and accuracy.

 

[Paul63]

Shooter, I can't attest to accuracy, but in their site they claim only American manufactured components and locks from Davis and Siler in the kits I reviewed. They also cite that their products are guaranteed.
American manufacture's, guareteed products and quality locks such as Davis and Silver pretty much made a believer out of me.
I'll call before I order but it sounds like a solid business to deal with.

 

[hawkthrower]

had real good dealings with Sitting Fox. Built one of their trade gun kits and first shot popped a piece off the sear notch. Called them up and had a new tumbler in my hands a week later. Problems will come up ,its how quick and clean they are taken care of that impresses me. :thumbsup:

Ron

 

[Paul63]

Found this note in the Loyalist Arms site that I had missed before.
"Loading and proofing data available for all our muskets". Thought I'd share what I found.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Found this note in the Loyalist Arms site that I had missed before.
"Loading and proofing data available for all our muskets".

My most recent purchase from them came with information so that I could do my own test if I wished. A lot of places misuse the term "proofing", whether they are American builders or importers of guns or parts from India.

No American builder, or anybody else in America or Canada, can proof a gun barrel. You can test the heck out of them..., you can fire double balls and huge loads, xray and magnaflux the barrels before and after..., but you cannot proof a barrel unless it undergoes testing at an approved "proofing house". In fact using that term means it underwent testing in such an approved facility, and to use it otherwise is wrong. No proof houses exist in North America.

Further, although the Proofing Houses all accept identical criteria for modern propellant firearms..., they each have their own standards for black powder proofing, and they very quite a bit.

So if you hear of a builder, or an importer, and "He proofs all his rifles"..., no he doesn't :nono: , though he may test them well, unless he sends the barrel to one of the proofing houses in another country. Interesting to note, one of our German friends on this forum has guns with barrels from India, and in Germany (and also in England I think) for people to own those guns with the touch hole drilled, they MUST be sent to the proofing house and passed. So far all of his India made barrels have passed.

LD

 

[Artificer]

Good point. And he also mentioned having one gun built here in America, with an American made Rifle Barrel, that flunked the German Proof House test.

Gus

 

[Robert Egler]

I would disagree that no American firearms manufacturer proofs their barrels.

The United States does not have a legal definition of proofing firearms. Manufacturers, for example Winchester, proof their own barrels. Winchester has an actual stamp on the barrel showing it passed their proof.

According to the OED testing a barrel for soundness is proofing the barrel. There are no standards in the US for what that means, but by the definition of proof any test of a barrel's integrity is a proof.

In many other countries there exist legal standards, but not here, so when Winchester says it proofs its barrels it is technically correct. They test their own barrels, which meets the definition of proofing a barrel, even though it doesn't meet the legal definition of proofing a barrel in other countries. Here in the US whether that proof actually MEANS anything depends on the manufacturer. But if they test their barrels at all, it meets the English language definition of proofing a barrel.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

You may want to note that I did not specify manufacturers of barrels, but builders..., but be that as it may...,

By your logic, I can test a barrel by tapping on it with a wooden mallet, and then declare by my testing that it is proofed, since you claim without a legal criteria, or by the generic criteria of the dictionary, any test will do.

You will also note that in the discussions of India made guns, there are folks who point out that the Italian barrels have passed proof. Such discussions are indeed, as is this, concerned with subjecting the barrel to independent testing in a proof house that meets international treaty.

So while Winchester may manufacture their barrel, and they may certify their product, they are not an independent testing location that adhere's to the CIP. Ergo, by that definition, my information is still correct.

Your opinion may take my meaning and definition as too narrow, but it does follow an accepted standard while yours is arbitrary.

LD

 

[Robert Egler]

I do not dispute that US or India-made barrels are not proved to the the standards we usually mean, that is being testing by an independent testing house, my point is that when someone says they proof their barrels, they are not making a false statement within the formal definition of proofing a barrel. Misleading perhaps, but not incorrect.

It is not my arbitrary meaning, it is the formal meaning defined in the Oxford English Dictionary, which I certainly take as the ultimate and final authority concerning words in the English language.

We may arbitrarily add conditions to the meaning of the word as we understand it or wish it to mean, but that doesn't change the fact that these extra conditions are our additional conditions and not within the actual definition of the word.