Why the hatred for CVA?

[zimmerstutzen]

Shumway was still able to sign his name in 2004??? I live near him and he was pretty much in the throws of senility by then.

None the less. CVA sold some junk in the early 1970's. Their line was pretty good for the first half of the 1980's and then in the 1990's went seriously down hill again. Yes they made and sold junk, They also sold some of the best production guns offerred for sale in the US, and a whole line of different reasonably priced pistols that got many of us started.

The CVA mountain rifle was by many considered to be a better built gun than anything offerred by tc. (I know.... blasphemy to some) The early colonial pistols were about the worst of anything offerred. Even the CVA Bobcat is an incredible rifle for the price. When comparing quality per dollar, TC never came close. Frankly, I don't want brass on a hunting rifle. TC barrels were never known for good fine accuracy. TC;s flint lock geometry was flawed and they designed the gun and still sell the flinters with cheap case hardened frizzens, which caused an incredible cost in warranty work.

It is unfair to say that all CVA's were junk when the mountain rifle was so good. The Zouave they sold was made by Zoli, which is still recognized as a good quality Zouve repro. My Frontier rifle was about the cheapest gun to ever sport DST;s and it will outgroup most TC;s.

 

[Shine]

I love the one taken by the posted sign in the middle of the night. You sure your not from maine. :grin:

 

[roundball]

Yes, I thought the old gate post and posted sign would add to the photograph...I had actually shot him a little before dark but by the time I dragged him out to the road it was pitch black...I was leaning against the truck as I took the photo.

Behind the posted sign is a little 8-10 acre woodlot that I lease from a landowner...very little ground to actually hunt on but its completely surrounded by large acreage and deer move back and forth through the woods regardless of property lines of course...its been a great place over the years.

 

[rabjr]

Shumway was still able to sign his name in 2004??? I live near him and he was pretty much in the throws of senility by then.

None the less. CVA sold some junk in the early 1970's. Their line was pretty good for the first half of the 1980's and then in the 1990's went seriously down hill again. Yes they made and sold junk, They also sold some of the best production guns offerred for sale in the US, and a whole line of different reasonably priced pistols that got many of us started.

The CVA mountain rifle was by many considered to be a better built gun than anything offerred by tc. (I know.... blasphemy to some) The early colonial pistols were about the worst of anything offerred. Even the CVA Bobcat is an incredible rifle for the price. When comparing quality per dollar, TC never came close. Frankly, I don't want brass on a hunting rifle. TC barrels were never known for good fine accuracy. TC;s flint lock geometry was flawed and they designed the gun and still sell the flinters with cheap case hardened frizzens, which caused an incredible cost in warranty work.

It is unfair to say that all CVA's were junk when the mountain rifle was so good. The Zouave they sold was made by Zoli, which is still recognized as a good quality Zouve repro. My Frontier rifle was about the cheapest gun to ever sport DST;s and it will outgroup most TC;s.

I beg to differ on your dates because I worked in a Bait & Tackle shop that sold the damn things from 83' to 86' pretty much everyday then part time from middle of 86' to middle of 90' and they were junk then.

 

[tg]

If you want your Renagde to PC for sometime in history have at it I really don't care anymore.
and the Schumway comment was to find similar detaild decriptions of your Calififornia guns for comparison to current offereings, and I have no further interest in your gun lectures unfortunately I cannot put you on my favorite list, and that is not favorites list, have a good day.

 

[ebiggs1]

What I don’t understand and still no one has answered, is does your gun have to be a close facsimile of an actual gun? Or if it is made in the likeness of a gun from the period would it still be considered acceptable, not?
Which begs my second question, if I were to walk in town with a TC Hawken, or Lyman GPR, or the lowly CVA, would I be ostracized?

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

What I don’t understand and still no one has answered, is does your gun have to be a close facsimile of an actual gun? Or if it is made in the likeness of a gun from the period would it still be considered acceptable, not?
Which begs my second question, if I were to walk in town with a TC Hawken, or Lyman GPR, or the lowly CVA, would I be ostracized?

Yes, it should be constructed as close as possible to what would have been in use at that time, the guns you mention simply are not in any way similar unless you are nearsighted and squint really hard.

For the second question, if you mean a town in the 1770s or 1870s, you would get a lot of sideways glances and the occasional raised eyebrow. If in the 1970s, you's fit right in.

 

[Zonie]

Thanks.
I don't own a CVA rifle anymore.
Back in the 1980's I had a CVA "Hawken" and a "Frontier" but I sold them years ago.
I do still own a CVA Derringer, a CVA Colt 1849 and a CVA Colt 3rd Model Dragoon pistol though.

Have a good day.

 

[ebiggs1]

Thanks for the reply but you still didn’t answer the question.
Here it is again:
Does your gun have to be a close facsimile of an actual known gun?
If it is made in the likeness of a gun from the period would it still be considered acceptable?

Because the definition of the word “likeness” leaves a lot to the eye of the beholder.
And because we will never know for sure if all types of rifles have been found, how would you know if any gun was not made like a period gun?

I think this HC/PC is way over this ol boy's head. I guess I just don't understand.

 

[roundball]

I also think the PC/HC thing continues to be over blown here...you could probably count on one hand the number of members who have/use actual specific detailed precise replicas of anything original.

And once a gun is outside that precise PC/HC category, its outside the category, period.
Makes no difference if its outside the PC/HC category by a little or a lot...its outside the category.
Kind of like a woman can't get just a little bit pregnant..she either is or she isn't.

It really would be great if all those who sit on limbs waiting to swoop in and claim something "is not PC" would post their own precise details about their own muzzleloaders...if they're not carrying/using precise PC/HC gear all the way, then they need to drop the attitude.

AND...if the attitude HAS to be displayed, take it down into the historical categories of the MLF where they're supposed to be limited to, by Claude's own posted rules.

This constant PC/HC mess is not supposed to be taking place up here in the gereral categories where people who just like to use/shoot/hunt with muzzleloaders share everyday information...NOT thread counting.

:shake:

 

[RickD]

Amen..Thank you Roundball

 

[biliff]

To try and answer your question, it depends on what you're trying to do.

If you are a reenactor portraying Lewis and Clark during their stay at Fort Clatsop, you should have a copy of an actual gun known to be in their possession at that time or at least as best we know it (your ACTUAL known gun). A Brown Bess, even an exact copy and current during that era, would not be HC. Those individuals didn't have 'em at that place and time.

If you are going to a reenactment portraying a generic 1780's-90's Penns. farmer you have a lot more options. Various smoothbores, military muskets and locally produced rifles are options. But again, to do an accurate portrayal you need to go based on what is known and stay within those parameters (your LIKENESS of a gun from the period).

If you're simply going to a "sidelock, open iron sights and PRB, ya'll come and have a good time" Rondy then pretty much anything goes within those parameters(and I've seen those stretched a bit thin, too, just to let more people shoot). A vague old timey impression is about all that is required.

As for

And because we will never know for sure if all types of rifles have been found, how would you know if any gun was not made like a period gun?

Should we list unicorns as an endangered species? Just because nobody has found one doesn't mean they don't exist somewhere and need to be protected.
Following this logic ends up in an "anything goes" situation, since you can't prove a negative.

Working from known examples of period guns at least keeps things representative of the known. If someone does turn up a documented example of something different then go for it.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Thanks for the reply but you still didn’t answer the question.
Here it is again:
Does your gun have to be a close facsimile of an actual known gun?
If it is made in the likeness of a gun from the period would it still be considered acceptable?

Simple questions to answer, yes to both depending on the event and those running things.

Because the definition of the word “likeness” leaves a lot to the eye of the beholder.
And because we will never know for sure if all types of rifles have been found, how would you know if any gun was not made like a period gun?

Due to the technologies available at the time and the designs common in the period, it would be difficult, even impossible, for someone in the 18th or 19th Century to have built anything that remotely resembles many of the characteristics seen in the modern products made by TC, CVA, Lyman, etc, even most Pedersoli products.

I think this HC/PC is way over this ol boy's head. I guess I just don't understand./

Not at all, study the original items and appreciate the art form and quality (or lack thereof) of materials and of the work they did and you will understand. BakeovenBill's unicorn analogy was just about perfect.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

I also think the PC/HC thing continues to be over blown here...

Then why do so many who disagree with it keep bringing it up, both here and in the places where you seem to suggest it should be confined to?

(I see your shaking head....) :shake: (and raise you a....) :bull:

:wink:

 

[Shine]

I had a CVA pennsylvania rifle once, nice gun. Anyone remember those. They were fairly high quality for cva at least I thought so.

 

[No Grease]

I have two ROM's made by CVA one brass and one steel frame along with three rifles one a 54 and two 45's all of them allow me to participate and enjoy the shooting of muzzle loaders. I also have quite a few traditions firearms too. I view them all as modern interpretations of weapons of old whether flint or percussion. :thumbsup:

 

[roundball]

I can tell I struck a nerve, so that's good...appreciate the confirmation.

 

[8905c]

Shine -
I still have a CVA PA. rifle that my wife got me in about the mid-eighties. The rifle is a .50 cal. and is a great shooter. In fact, back when I first got the rifle, I attended some ML rifle shoots. I actually won a few matches with this rifle!
8905c

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

I can tell I struck a nerve, so that's good...appreciate the confirmation.

:rotf:
Not a nerve, just a foolish remark on your part.

 

[ebiggs1]

Due to the technologies available at the time and the designs common in the period, it would be difficult, even impossible, for someone in the 18th or 19th Century to have built anything that remotely resembles many of the characteristics seen in the modern products made by TC, CVA, Lyman, etc, even most Pedersoli products.

Mr. Va.Manuf.06 ,
I think I was following all this until this statement. I have seen pictures of guns that resemble a TC Hawken. I think Zonie or one of the Moderators even posted one. The sights being one problem.
But even closer is the Lyman GPR. It does ”˜resemble’ an early real Hawken. I can see they are not exact but there is that “resemble” thing again. Perhaps we should install a point system to rate the facsimile of any repo flintlock to an original known example.
Like they do at car shows.