I'll trade you for that old beat up iron, take it off your hands
Cubans? No, I couldn't take advantage of a fellow forum member like that .
Nice looking rifle. Bet it shoots good.
I'll trade you for that old beat up iron, take it off your hands
The only way I'd do the replacement barrel is to send the orignal barrel so the maker could replicate it. I would not
fit an original stock to a replacement barrel.
The 1842 has a wide spot in the barrel. That and I've done little more than toy with it. I haven't invested the time to figure the best load or patch thickness. I have only tried 60 grains of 2F. Way short of the full load.
Bobby Hoyt can fix the original barrel. The key to getting a smoothbore to shoot well without a patch is to cast the ball .005 under the measured bore size. That leaves .0025 windage and obturation on firing deals with that. You can still get a ball down the barrel for subsequent shots. Here's my 1842 Macon repop and a offhand target at 25yd. I can take headshots out to 50yd with no issue. That's a 5 shot group with one called flyer. Load is 65g 3f Old E or Swiss.
View attachment 1074512
By way of comparison, here's my "hybrid" M1842 -- original Harpers Ferry lock and trigger guard, and repro (Dunlap) stock and (Whitacre) barrel:
View attachment 1074550
Here's my straight Chiappa (Armi Sport) M1842 repro, in the "rifled and sighted" version:
View attachment 1074557
Cubans? No, I couldn't take advantage of a fellow forum member like that .
Nice looking rifle. Bet it shoots good.
Yup, that's exactly how a smooth bore should shoot at 25 yards, really not much difference from a rifle, at 25. And of course still grouping good at 50, but beyond fifty they will really start to spread out. Now no offense Dave, but I believe a patched "chewed" ball would group a bit better than that. I have found, and maybe it's just me, or my results, that smooth bore accuracy usually improves as the charge is increased. Or at least that is true with my Brown Bess. All muskets and rifles are individuals of course, and that would not/might not be true for all. And I will admit, in my Bess, a tightly patched ball over a heavy charge is only good for three shots before wiping.
I've experimented with patched and "chewed" ball and they do NOT group better than this load in this gun. The group in the pic was shot offhand and would have been tighter from the bench. I found that 65g 3f Old E was the optimum for this barrel length. In smoothbores, barrel length is a huge consideration and only careful experimentation will yield best results.
By way of comparison, here's my "hybrid" M1842 -- original Harpers Ferry lock and trigger guard, and repro (Dunlap) stock and (Whitacre) barrel:
View attachment 1074550
Here's my straight Chiappa (Armi Sport) M1842 repro, in the "rifled and sighted" version:
View attachment 1074557
I put that gun together sometime in the late 1980's, when I was still doing Civil War reenacting. Dunlap Woodcrafts was local to me (in Chantilly, Virginia) so I just went over there and asked what they had available. I picked out a pretty nice one, but they gave me a discount because it was "blemished." The "blemish" was a vertical "knot" in the wood, which you can see in my picture just behind the wrist area. It's hardly visible after staining and oiling the stock.When did you purchase your Dunlap Stock?
This wood is actually better than the Chiappa wood that you can see in my second picture. Speaking of Chiappa, their Armi Sport M1861 is lousy, being way too thick and heavy in both the barrel and the stock. But their M1842 is extremely close to the originals. Go figure.
I believe that Dunlap is still in business, although I haven't checked on them in a long time. Their prices, of course, have gone up considerably.
My standard is authenticity. I mean, if you're going to make a reproduction, why bother if you don't do it right? Put an Armi Sport M1861 next to an original, and you'll see exactly what I mean. The Euroarms (tooling later taken over by Pedersoli) is better, and the late-lamented Japanese Miroku was the best of all, in the authenticity department.I have an Armi Sport 1861, it is not lousy. Maybe not "close to original", for those who give a hoot about that, but it is a beautiful rifle. Fit, finish, and craftsmanship is second to none.
My standard is authenticity. I mean, if you're going to make a reproduction, why bother if you don't do it right? Put an Armi Sport M1861 next to an original, and you'll see exactly what I mean. The Euroarms (tooling later taken over by Pedersoli) is better, and the late-lamented Japanese Miroku was the best of all, in the authenticity department.
I agree that standing on its own the Armi Sport is well made. Overbuilt, actually. That's just the problem. Barrel and stock are way too thick and heavy.
But Armi Sport / Chiappa is inconsistent regarding authenticity. As I said, their M1842 is really excellent. It passes the "side by side with an original" test.
Replicas are for shooting. Keep the originals in the safe.
Replicas are for shooting. Keep the originals in the safe.
The replicas have become collectible in their own right. Some of the values rival the values of originals!Replicas are for shooting. Keep the originals in the safe.
The replicas have become collectible in their own right. Some of the values rival the values of originals!
One of the rules that I came up with when I started collecting is that everything must be shootable (even though I don't generally shoot them). So, everything in my collection prior to Trapdoor Springfields (i.e., muzzleloaders) is a reproduction (except for a couple of originals that I inherited). Some of the reproductions have been going up in value faster than their original counterparts.