Why the hatred for CVA?

[jeep44]

I have three of the "Made in USA" CVA Mountain Rifles, and one of the Mountain pistols. You guys just keep knockin'em, and I'll just keep picking them up cheap. I'm on the hunt for a Big Bore now.

 

[mr.flintlock]

I started out shooting CVA rifles back in the 1970s and never had any major problem with them. They served me well over the years and I enjoyed shooting and hunting with them. Today I still own two of those guns, a Big Bore Mountain rifle, 54 cal. I also still have my 12 gauge Turkey classic double barrel shotgun. I have taken a lot of game over the years with those two. I seldom use either one any more, not because they are non-custom CVA but because I switched to shooting flint years ago and enjoy building my own rifles.

The problem that I have with CVA is that they seem to have forgot the people who made their company a success (namely, people like me who bought and used their primitive muzzleloaders). Now they seem to only care about the inline crowd.

 

[MikeChapin]

I don't like the drum bolster. Too prone to misfires. I much prefer Lyman and T/C with the snail bolster. I have NEVER had a misfire with them that I did not cause from my own oversight.

HD

That is one point on the CVA that needs special care. It is a strong breech system but it makes for a long flash channel. The architecture makes it easy to plug if special care is not taken.

On most rifles I leave the cleanout screw alone. On CVAs I always pull it and clean the channel with pipe cleaners. Also the small hole that gives access to the main charge is smaller than I like. If a person cleans between shots, it is easy to get enough gunk into the hole to keep some of the main charge from going into the flash channel.

 

[Dave K]

Stictly my take on this. I have known many people with CVA's, T/C's and only myself locally with Lymans. I know of no one that had trouble with any of them. IMHO, CVA would have been miles ahead, if they just would have chose a pretty/better grade of wood. Personally, I have a CVA Mountain and a Lyman GPR. Both are very good shooters and the CVA really surprised me. For me, and many others had better luck than I did, but my T/C was not near the shooter that the other guns mentioned here are. Period correct? All this guns are period correct to someone's point of view, but not to mine. :surrender:

 

[ebiggs1]

"The guns may not be representative of the area of the country where some folks do their reenacting or the time period they choose to recreate and perhaps using one of them to represent a time of 1830 in the East Coast regions is probably not "correct" that in itself does not make the gun "non PC/HC".

Zonie do we know for an undeniable fact that all the guns from that period have been found? And that no one from that period ever made a gun resembling a CVA or TC or Lyman? I am not HC/PC in the least, don’t care to be. I am not a reenactor either but just browsing some pictures of old rifles, I have seen some that look similar. I don’t think anyone in any early 1830’s town would look at you like you had a third eye, if you walked out of the woods with one in hand. On the other hand maybe they would, it's not my cup of tea.

 

[Little Wattsy]

Those who have taken the time to do some research into it know that rifles very similar to the CVA, Traditions, TC and the Lyman deerstalker were made in the mid 1800's.
Many of the guns made in California in the 1850-1870 time period come to mind.

While the stock wood on many of these Spanish guns is unusual, the basic design is not.

The guns may not be representative of the area of the country where some folks do their reenacting or the time period they choose to recreate and perhaps using one of them to represent a time of 1830 in the East Coast regions is probably not "correct" that in itself does not make the gun "non PC/HC".

For the dyed in the wool reenactors, Period Correctness (PC) and Historically Correct (HC) is all there is to a guns acceptability. That's all that matters to them and that's fine as far as it goes but for them to force their opinion on those who just enjoy shooting muzzleloading rifles is a bit much in my opinion.

Thank YOU Zonie!! :hatsoff:

 

[Blizzard of '93]

mike pretty well nailed it. the drum needs cleaning every so often - I use a s/s screw in the threads to keep from getting stuck in there. and teflon paste.
I have 2 CVA .50 cappers and a .50 T/C New Englander. the 2 CVA's have filled doe tags no problem at 50 yds. with prb. one ran off but I should not have taken the shot (it was running in thicket - won't do that again), but did find it still blowing blood out about 1/4 mile away.
the T/C I haven't hunted with it. yet.

 

[Zonie]

In the interest of stirring the pot just a little, lets look at what is required for a rifle to be Historically or Period correct. While we're at it lets say the time period is 1840-1860.

The gun should be a muzzleloader.
It may be a flintlock or a percussion gun (percussion preferred).
If the gun is percussion the nipple may be installed in a side drum, a "snail" breech or directly into the barrel.
It should have a wooden stock. Walnut or maple are common but may be made from any hardwood that is available in the U.S.A.
It may be a full stock but it is likely a half stock.
It may have a simple single trigger or a set trigger.
It has open non-adjustable sights.*
It is capable of shooting patched roundballs.
It may have a patch box or a cap box or no storage at all.
If it is a halfstock it will usually have a barrel rib supporting the thimbles. This may be iron (steel) or wood.
It will have a rather pronounced curve to the butt plate.
The butt plate will be rather narrow.
A half stock may used a hooked breech and one or two barrel wedges to hold the barrel in place.
It's furniture is brass, German Silver, pewter or iron (steel).
It may have a "fish belly" straight or curved lower stock shape.
It likely has a cheekpiece on the stock.
It may have inlays and carving but these are somewhat unusual.
It uses one or two bolts to retain the lock. These are usually supported by some type of metal sideplate(s).
It may have a toe plate but some guns will not.
The ramrod is wood either with or without a metal tip.

I could go on but so far the only failure that I can see is the adjustable sights* that are supplied on most factory made reproductions.

Now, can anyone tell me specifically why a CVA, Traditions, TC or Lyman reproduction is NOT PC or HC for that time period? What part of the guns fail the test?
It cannot be "the shape of the stock" because these varied greatly between gunsmiths. There is/was no "specific shape" that is correct while others are not.

Just as an example, this is a California built gun that was built in that time period.

* The sights on the reproduction guns can be changed without major problems if this is important to the owner.

 

[Rat Trapper]

Yes I hate them, they are not allowed in my house and I want nothing to do with them. The reason why is and I have posted this more than once, I worked in a Bait & Tackle Shop in the 80's where one end of the rack would be T/C's lined up and the other the cheapest CVA's my Boss could get. To many guys would rather spend 100 bucks than 300 and I sat there through a lot of irate customers coming back, time and time again how they missed the deer or with broken parts. We sold 12 "Fronteer's" once and had 9 come back within two weeks, all with broken parts and you could see how cheap these guns were put together.

It was sickening and I did my best to stir guys to the more expensive T/C. But this is all my opinion and what I want from a gun, if you happen to like the brand fine, I hope you enjoy your gun but hell no I'll never own one. :v

Prety much sums up what I've experienced too! No fun having customers stand there and swear at you for selling them something that fails.

 

[rabjr]

Yes I hate them, they are not allowed in my house and I want nothing to do with them. The reason why is and I have posted this more than once, I worked in a Bait & Tackle Shop in the 80's where one end of the rack would be T/C's lined up and the other the cheapest CVA's my Boss could get. To many guys would rather spend 100 bucks than 300 and I sat there through a lot of irate customers coming back, time and time again how they missed the deer or with broken parts. We sold 12 "Fronteer's" once and had 9 come back within two weeks, all with broken parts and you could see how cheap these guns were put together.

It was sickening and I did my best to stir guys to the more expensive T/C. But this is all my opinion and what I want from a gun, if you happen to like the brand fine, I hope you enjoy your gun but hell no I'll never own one. :v

Prety much sums up what I've experienced too! No fun having customers stand there and swear at you for selling them something that fails.

Well if you went through what I did for about 7 years Rat Trapper, I feel for ya brother.

I know a lot of CVA shooters here are probably miffed at me for speaking my mind but it was no fun dealing with upset/mad customers. Just from what I saw I could not understand how this company made any money and stayed in business...and I wanted it to go under so bad and go away...seemed to me with just a little effort in quality control and in assembling, the company would have made a hell of a lot more profit than it did. My first gun was from the other side of the rack, it was an easy choice, a T/C Renegade of which I used until the T/C WMC came out and I had to have one.

 

[Walks Alone]

Nobody should be miffed at you at all Swampy. Everybody is entitled to their opinion. Glad ALL of my experiences with CVA's have been good ones.

 

[jeep44]

I read some of these posts, and it seems like they are talking about a different CVA than the one I know. I consider the Mountain Rifle to be a well-made, accurate piece,and it's slim, elegant style looks just right to me. I've got three of them, and I'll pick up any more that come my way. I must confess that I have no experience with other rifles in their line,though.

 

[tg]

Find a bunch of your California guns and check the specs on barrel lengths and width/taper, drop in stock width of wrist, find the specs as Schumway lists them in RCA then compare with the modern imports,the gun you show looks nothing like any of the imports I have seen.look at the barrel length to forearm length, of course if stock shapes don't count we can disallow many other things untill we make the imports fit history, study them closely you will see it if you want to.What we have is when the manufactures shorrwned up and doewn sized the Mt rilfes/Hawkens they had a gun that out of random chance slightly resembles some of the later ML period halfstocks, anyway enjoy you are probably correct as the absence of evidence does not mean absence of existance, I rather think some of the early mid 1820-early 1830 caplcks had a breech design that used a paper cartridge and pinched off the paper and let powder move to the primer vent, there is no evidence that such guns did not exist,no one can prove they did not exist then, we have no record of such guns but that is not important we must keep an open mind, have a good day Zonie.

 

[fleener]

Junk.

perhaps the past 8 years they have gotten better, but prior to that they quite simply are and were junk.

snapper

 

[Rogue River]

If anyone has one of those pieces "junk" PM me I just might take it off your hands. It couldn't be worth much so I might just do you a favor! :grin:

 

[ebiggs1]

For my own curiosity, what ”˜mistake’ do you consider acceptable? Or, is no mistake in copying allowed and you must copy and existing example of an early rifle?

And do you consider this true statement?
“I don’t think anyone in any early 1830’s town would look at you like you had a third eye, if you walked out of the woods with a CVA in hand.”

I’m not into this part of muzzle loading so I don’t have any idea how strict the rules are for HC/PC stuff. If the rules are no that strict maybe there is a factual hatred for CVA.

 

[luieb45]

CVAs and Traditions look a lot more HC/PC than T/Cs because anymore as I learn more about guns T/Cs look rather kiddish to me.

 

[tg]

"I don’t think anyone in any early 1830’s town would look at you like you had a third eye, if you walked out of the woods with a CVA in hand.”

This would depend on which CVA, the Bobcat and the kentucky would likely raise some eyebrows, they would definately be somewhat different that what most were used to, and I do not see a wide range hate thing for CVA's I had good luck with the ones I had but would not use one for a historical event except possibly for the Mt Rifle and it is just closer than the rest and passable in general open "vous events, originals would be quite a bit heavier.

 

[roundball]

CVAs and Traditions look a lot more HC/PC than T/Cs because anymore as I learn more about guns T/Cs look rather kiddish to me.

Here’s some of those kiddish T/C Hawkens you referred to...probably why they work so well...deer think they’re toy guns or something.
:thumbsup:

 

[Zonie]

Greetings tg:
You and I must have different versions of George Shumway's book "RIFLES OF COLONIAL AMERICA" Vol I, II?
Mine is the Second edition, published in 2002 and autographed by George Shumway, 9 December 2004.

Both volumes deal with guns made in the 17th and 18th Century so neither of them say anything about the guns that were made in the 1840-1860 time period.

As I'm sure that you know, in the mid 1800's straight commercially made steel barrels were available and used by many gunsmiths. Remington, among others made a small fortune selling these all over the U.S.
Yes, tapered barrels were often found on guns from this era but that does not mean that ALL guns made then had them. I've run across many that had nice straight barrels.

You confuse me when you say, "...of course if stock shapes don't count we can disallow many other things untill we make the imports fit history..."

Am I to assume that if the length of the forearm, the drop of the butt, the thickness of the wrist don't exactly match some documented gun that was made in, in that time period then it is not Historically Correct?

If that is the case then who's gun is the gun that must be used as the pattern?
Is it from the East coast? The Mid-America area? The West coast? The guns from each of these areas look quite different. The shape of the stock, the drop of the stock, the length of the fore end....all different.

Are Hawkens the only guns that were made then? If so, what about Tryon? Leman? Henry? Dimick? Hingle? Baumann? Albright? and these don't even scratch the surface when it comes to recognized gun makers in the mid 1800's.
(By the way, you will note that I do agree with you when I say that any of the CVA guns which use plastic stocks are NOT historically or period correct because Plastic was not invented then.)

The idea that a gun is not PC or HC simply because it doesn't fit a pre-conceived ideal that doesn't allow for straight barrels (in the mid 1800's), short barrels, more or less drop than some specific number or a short fore end is totally arbitrary and cannot be supported by the facts. Thousands of guns, none of them looking like each other were built in the 1800's.

Basically, as I understand it, if a lock type like a percussion sidelock was made in the mid-1800's, if straight barrels existed and were used in the mid-1800's, if curved brass buttplates were made in the mid-1800's and even "if some folks had a shortened barreled rifle" in the mid-1800's then all or any of these features are Historically and Period Correct for use in any reenactment of the mid-1800's.

Would they be correct for the late 1700's? No. But there was a time in our history where these features were common.