Which Would You Choose, Italy or India-made Repros?

[hawkeye74]

Ouch!

Trying to find a picture of a Euroarms Rogers and Spencer that blew during a match. Shooter had mis-loaded. Double loaded powder to one chamber, no powder other. Cap pushed ball into barrel, next chamber worked fine. Barrel split and rolled back from the muzzle so that it looked like a banana had been peeled, just like in some of the old cartoons.

 

[RyanM]

This is how CVA got away with all of the bad barrels through the "proofing process" The only legal standard is 130%.

What I heard, that was due to different standards. The Spanish government has several proofing standards for BP arms, the lowest of which is firing a load which generates 5,000 PSI. CVA said "okay, proof 'em at that, since it's cheaper," then turned around and told the American consumer "yeah, you can fire 25,000 PSI loads in these all day, no problem."

Whereas Italian proofhouses will triple charge everything (IIRC), no exceptions except guns where that much powder won't fit, making Italian exports more expensive.

 

[iron maiden]

I have two of the Pedersoli reproductions:
Charleville
Brown Bess
Plus I have a Blue Ridge/Frontier caplock rifle from Cabela's.

All of my Pedersoli's are excellent quality; fit and finish, lockwork, etc. are all top notch.

The only complaint I have against Pedersoli is that they don't make a Long Land pattern Brown Bess and an early Charleville.....for F&I war re-enactments. If Pedersoli had those, it would be darn near impossible for me to even consider an Indian made gun.

I almost got a used Indian made Long Land last year....but from talking to the guy at the gun show, he said he had problems with it not wanting to fire. He let me "spark test" it and there was no sparks as far as I could tell. The flint looked to be in decent shape....so I figure the frizzen metal needed tempered or something else. I've heard this before about the frizzens needing some work.

As for me, I'll stick with the Pedersoli's....they're just an outstanding piece of workmanship.

 

[Cosmoline]

The poll is incomplete. The question is FOR WHAT PURPOSE and ON WHAT BUDGET.

Extensive shooting with full charges and a healthy budget, go with Pedersoli or much better yet, a custom recreation by a master builder.

For hanging on the wall and capping off a few light charges every few years for novelty, nothing wrong with Loyalist or Middlesex. They're also used a lot for historical recreations, where ball is never used.

 

[hawkeye74]

Hanging on the wall, okay. Every once in a while, with light loads maybe. But I know of one failure that occured at a re-enactment without ball. As I understand it, heavy charges for loud booms combined with improper cleaning lead to fouling build up, which caused an obstruction which lead to the failure.

You can't fix stupid. Some folks will find a way to hurt themselves. But still, no ball was required to make that Indian Musket fail.

If you want to take the risk, go for it. But like someone else said, body parts don't grow back. I have enough aches and pains from mispent youth. I need to keep what's working for hopefully another 50 years.

 

[Afy]

I can pretty much guarantee the 1717 musket is not made in India. Maybe they get the roughs.. and finish them in the US. The Indian musket makers are not capable of that fit and finish.

 

[Al LaVodka]

Well Cosmoline;
You and Loyalist Dave can have a poll between the two of you but I think the vast majority have made their (and coincidentally my) points pretty clearly so far and, I thought, simply enough for everybody though there is always the odd exception...

Thanks everyone for your votes and thoughts.

Al

 

[arcticap]

That reminds me of the regular poster over on the Muzzle Loading Forum that bought a doglock blunderbus constructed of polished steel from Middlesex Village. After he reported how well it fired and how much he was thrilled with every aspect of it for $500, it would make almost anyone wish that they could shoot one, even if it was just once.
So there's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting one, shooting one or buying one. And nothing that anyone says can take away the amount of personal satisfaction and pride of ownership that many folks do indeed have for theirs.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Hanging on the wall, okay. Every once in a while, with light loads maybe. But I know of one failure that occured at a re-enactment without ball. As I understand it, heavy charges for loud booms combined with improper cleaning lead to fouling build up, which caused an obstruction which lead to the failure.

WHICH by the way, would've ruptured an Italian barrel as well. I know the incident very well.

Could you folks who identify the guns where you found problems ever identify the makers? I mean so far we have the barrels are made of almost pewter, the one I saw didn't spark right, etc etc. You folks want to lump all of the Indian guns into one group, without facts, only stories. So by that logic, because Beretta has had numerous problems with their pistol breaking or blowing up in the faces of US military personnel, then all Italian guns, even Pedersoli, are unsafe? That wouldn't be fare to say or write.

So how is it fair to run down an entire group of guns, and the people who have jobs based on those sales, simply because one out of three manufacturers may have a poor product? And this scientific survey of what, 36 people?

LD

 

[hawkeye74]

LD,

I wish you well with your business. My family has been in retail sales for over a 100 years. We still exist because we are honest in our dealings. If a customer doesn't need a commercial grade Item, we tell them the difference between the grades and let them decide. Most often they buy the higher grade but if they want the lower grade, they know what they are buying. If the item wears out or fails for some reason, they remember and appreciate our honesty. Ergo, we get a return customer. That's why we have survived against the giant big box stores for so long.

I don't know of an Italian gun failing firing blanks. I don't know the cause of the other three failures. None of the barrels were pewter, or even pewter like. They were some type of steel tubing. I do not know enough about steel to tell you the type, but it was definitely not what I consider to be barrel material.

As to the identity of the MFG. of the pieces that failed, we can't tell you because the sellers don't list the names or disclose them. If not told which MFG by the dealers, how can we distinguish between them.

Here is a direct quote from the Middlesex Web sight:

Q #6: Who is the manufacturer?

A: Exactly who is proprietary information. We have most our flintlocks made in India by a company who has in it's third generation and has been in the gun business since 1952 (that is even before Turner Kirkland started Dixie Gun Works). We also deal with several other suppliers in the same area.

I looked for the information on Loyalist Arms web site, could not find that anywhere. If it is there, please point it out to me. I know folks that will not buy different Italian MFGs for various reasons, even buying different guns, one model,from Pietta or Euroarms and different models from Uberti or Armisport. This is because they can believe one is better at making that particular model. If we were told the MFG of the Indian guns, we could distinguish between them. Until that information is available, the Indian guns will be lumped together.

This brings up another point why these guns should not be fired with live fire. Federal law requires all firearms be marked with the name of the MFG for them to be shipped to this country. This applies to the Reproduction muskets as well. This has led to a cottage industry of "de-farbing" the Italian guns for re-enactors. (I don't like this practice, but have to accept it because, other than preach against it, there is nothing I can do about it. It will continue until the Feds stop it. My beef is that it allows disreputable dealers to take advantage of the novices claiming they are originals.) If the MFG does not consider or ship them as firearms, why should we?

These muskets have no markings on them IDing the MFG. The ones, according my research, are shipped into this country with either vents not drilled, or with the lock shipped seperately so that they are shipped as "gun parts". Both methods are used by importers to slip through a loop hole in the law.

Beretta has paid the price for the errors and defects in their guns. The principal defect was the slide fracturing. The slide ws not strong enough to meet contract specs after mass production began. The fix as I understand it is coming out of Beretta's pocket. Where is the Indian Mfg when one of the barrels fail with live fire?

The poll is just that. An expression of opinion. I view the Indian guns as nothing more than a prop. Maybe a re-enactor gun IF the re-enactor takes proper care and precautions. ( My experience has been that a high percentage of them don't.) I wish you luck with your business, but I think safety should trump historical accuracy which from my research is the biggest plus for the Indian guns: That they are the most accurate repro of the of the commonly used Rev. War British musket.

 

[arcticap]

So you don't believe the MVT assertion that their barrels routinely pass European proof testing is truthful?
And you don't believe that MVT's own proof testing procedure is valid or proves the integrity of the barrel being tested?
How come there hasn't been any mention of a rash of lawsuits against MVT for barrel failure and how have they managed to stay in business for so long?
What do you really know about the strength of MVT's barrel steel?
If it was bad steel then that should be easy for any injured party to prove and report far and wide.
We do know from experience that they are not failing and that their locks are great sparkers that are backed by a warranty.
And their guns and many parts are individually hand fitted.
Don't you think that the MVT guns are much, much safer than the originals?
It's too bad that Pedersoli doesn't offer a blunderbus. I haven't heard about any reports of the MVT blunderbus failing and some of the U.S. guns and kits are even made with brass barrels. Those are suppose to be safer?

 

[Cosmoline]

You and Loyalist Dave can have a poll between the two of you but I think the vast majority have made their (and coincidentally my) points pretty clearly so far and, I thought, simply enough for everybody though there is always the odd exception

All your poll has done is show that the Peds have a better rep for quality than the India made muskets. No big news there. Your poll does not show that people think India-made muskets are unsafe. Nor have you established that. It's like a poll asking someone if they'd prefer a Colt Python to a Smith K frame magnum. There's no dispute which one is stronger over a lifetime of magnum loads, but also no dispute which one is cheaper and easier to conceal.

Furthermore, I'm not at all convinced that Pedersoli is the Colt of muskets. I've owned numerous caplocks of theirs, all of which suffered from very poor and rough machining in the patent breach and consequently had numerous failures to fire after about ten to twelve shots. This was true of the various Kodiak doubles and the Tryon. So much for the glories of Italian engineering.

 

[hawkeye74]

Articap,

The problem is no one knows what they are getting with the India made guns. They are not proofed by independent agencies. They are not identified to distinguish between good MFG and shoddy MFG. You know the reps of all of the Italian guns and have the proof house stamp. This info helps you make an intelligent decision.

All of the Italian guns are proofed at a government operated Proof house which has no interest in ultimate sales. The fee is paid for the test, not finishing a sale.

Thee Middlesex folks may be great honest folks, but I don't know them. So I base my opinion on what I can find out from independent sources and their own web site. When Middlesex has a vested interest in the sale, no I don't trust their proofing. This is made more so by the fact that these guns are imported through a loop hole by Middlesex and that they refuse to identify the MFG.

Under some current laws in Europe, some countries will only proof to 130% of recommended charge. So yes, I believe that they might pass a European "proof" at that level. I doubt that it would pass an Italian proof test at 3 times the recommended charge. (130% of 60 grain charge= 78 grains; versus 3 times 60 grains = 180 grains)

So far, I have not heard of any major injuries due to failures. Due to the cost of Experts, It takes considerable injury for a lawyer to take a case on. I do know that two of the people had minor injuries and probably soiled trousers. Based on what I heard, nothing more than a few stitches and minor burn. Not enough to justify a lawsuit.

With the Italian guns, You get an extra measure of safety with this independent test and knowing who makes them. When the Indians come out of the shadows and independently test the guns, great. I would love to get some more competition in the market.

If you trust Middlesex, Great. Go for it. Just be aware of the history and known facts related here and on their webs site.

Just for the record, I am not a big fan of the Italian guns, Pedersoli included.

ALL I have ever been exposed to have needed lock work and other repairs/modifications to make them reliable shooters. I shoot mostly originals and custom builds, including some I do myself. The Italians I shoot are modified by myself with lock jobs, custom barrels and Sights. The Sharps I shoot is American made by Shiloh, by far in my view the best Re-production Sharps in the World. No modifications necessary except for taller front sight.

 

[hawkeye74]

Forgot to say also, no I don't think the MVT guns are safer than the originals. I also think the fit and finish was generally better on the original BRITISH made guns which were also proofed. Many of the colonial made arms, like those recently on the market from Nepal, I would have doubts about. If an original gun is checked out by a gunsmith, and safe to shoot, I would go with it before an Indian OR Italian. I have won 1st Place Expert Aggregate medals with 2 different original guns, the oldest made in 1834.

Sparking poorly actually doesn't bother me. It is a relatively easy fix usually. I like the lock warranty claimed by MVT. If they honor it, it is one of the best I have seen.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

You wish me luck with my business? Well thank you, but I don't have a business related to black powder guns. I researched the availability of parts because several of the new folks to 18th century reenacting were thinking of buying LA 1st Model Bess muskets, and I wanted to be sure extra parts were available. I know how to, and have done several, rehardening of frizzens, Italian, Japanese, and lately a pair of Indian. Sorry if I gave the impression that I am in this as a sort of business hence the defence of the product...

OK now I understand. You don't like the fact that the contractor/importer puts their name on the gun, warranty or not. You want to know where the part was made with some independent assurance that it was made well. Got it!

So..., IF any barrel doesn't have a maker's origin stamped someplace upon it, i.e. the name of the maker and where it was made..., AND a proof mark..., then you would not trust the barrel? Is that correct? (Just trying to clarify)

AND if you went out and put 180 grains and a 1 oz. ball down the barrel (or is it three times the mass as well for 3 one-ounce balls?) and fired the barrel from a remote location and it held, that would not be enough. Is that correct? (Again just trying to clarify the standards here.)

It sounds reasonable. I just wanted to be sure. After all, I will grant that the reason for the invention of the "proof house" or "proofing a barrel" was because there was some question at some time in history (probably as a result of blowing up a few privates) of the quality of the barrels being sold to European governments.

So, if the barrels were submitted to a proof house that did just that, proofed at 3x the standard load, (though I wonder who says the standard load is 60 grains as shotguns routinely shoot 3 drams and that's like 81 grains of 2Fg..., well that question is for another time) and passed, and were then thus marked, .., I guess it wouldn't matter where they came from as long as they passed, right? If they will hold they will hold, regardless of the origin I suppose

So..., I guess they need to pull the barrels and ship them off for proofing, to satisfy some concerns.

LD

 

[hawkeye74]

You got it. In my profession, I get lied to a Lot!!! When things are hidden on purpose AND not independently tested for safety, I start looking for a reason and found there had been failures in the Indian barrels. I buy India made products often, when they are cheaper, and equal and/or better than what is offered. My problem is not India origin.

I have actually considered buying an Enfield and having the barrel re-lined with a steel liner for someone. Price difference was almost worth it to get the gun relined. The extra Shipping only made it more expensive. Never asked Hoyt or Whitacre if they would re-line the Indian Barrel.

BTW, The 60 grains was off of one of the web sites as a recommended load. I would be happier with the level of proof you suggest at 3 times 81 grains of 2FFg, 243 grains.

 

[arcticap]

I wonder how large of a proof load the originals were tested at in the equivalent amount of today's improved powders?

 

[hawkeye74]

The originals were tested at 3 times the service load for original powders. Each lot of powder was grade by granulation size(Fg, FFg. etc. today, Then they were called rifle, pistol, musket, cannon, etc.). As today, different companies had better powders than others. They tended to use the best powders at proof houses. I really doubt that today's real BP is better. My personal opinion is the subs are not as good as real BP.

For the Army, Powder was bought in very large lots and graded according to potentcy(today this would be psi). As long as the lot of powder fell within a range deemed acceptable, it was then rolled into cartidges. Civilians bought by the name brand preference or most often what was cheapest and available.

I have accidentally doubled loaded my Smoothbore 1834, double powder and ball. The 2 balls and 140 grains of powder did no damage at all, other than a very bruised shoulder.

 

[Smokin_Gun]

Real good info on this post... I for one voted Pedersoli orver India made firte arm, but anyone not wantin' they're india made guns ...please contact me and I
'll pay shipping to have ya send un to me... :O)
(not kiddin') I want a Boen Bess especially ... heeheehee!
Great Post by the way...

 

[Al LaVodka]

All your poll has done is show that the Peds have a better rep for quality than the India made muskets. No big news there. Your poll does not show that people think India-made muskets are unsafe. Nor have you established that. It's like a poll asking someone if they'd prefer a Colt Python to a Smith K frame magnum. There's no dispute which one is stronger over a lifetime of magnum loads, but also no dispute which one is cheaper and easier to conceal.

Cosmo...;
You're confusing me with someone else perhaps and with your example to be perfectly honest. "Safe" isn't in my poll per se and was not a point I personally focused on subsequently although I did encourage safety in conjunction with recognizing that sometimes "cheap" is not just inexpensive. That said, I confess I think quality is highly correlated to inherent safety. The participants' resulting theme of the thread, not surprising to me but counter to Loyalist's drumbeat on this forum recently, is clearly that there are quality (and, yes, if only by extension, safety) differences in a Pedersoli-level arm that are overwhelmingly preferred, sometimes splurged on, but usually considered well worth the premium.

I have to say I continue to be encouraged, informed, and proud of the level of knowledge and sharing I find here on THR.

Al

 

[hawkeye74]

The thing I wanted to get across is that while I would welcome a GOOD Indian made gun, Price, fit, and historically accurate are not the only issue. A poorly made cheap gun can be much more exspensive in the long run. You need to know the differences and reputations.

The Italian guns early on had problems also. They responded by improving the safety issues as well. Early, the Italians, some of them anyway, took short cuts, mainly brazing when welding or a machined part was needed. As it was realized that heavier use was not going to be safe, they started doing them right. It was mainly N-SSA complaints that lead to this. (The Early Re-Enactor movement was heavily influenced/poulated by the N-SSA membership.)

The Italians focus in the US is the re-enactor market. They are still, even Pedersoli, not catering to the true shooters market who shoot the guns extremely often. They don't really pay attention to internal fit and durability on their locks. That is why you hear about the need for such things as "o-ring modifications" to make the Italian Sharps shoot more than 6-7 rounds without locking up. The Barrels and basic guns are fine for the most part now. They do need fine tuning for the serious shooter.

 

[Al LaVodka]

Makes perfect sense: my India-made Sharps works flawlessly and cost only half the Italian one (though there are tidal-waves in the barrel as you look down the tube but I can live with them, I hope...).



Al

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Proof houses testing of .75 caliber smooth bore barrels fire 200 grains of powder, and launch 2.29 ounces of lead to proof them.

Since some folks simply must have them proofed, and since the logic so far has been [paraphrased] Since one Indian made musket blew up, and none are proofed, then all are dangerous, therefore since now there has been a test of one Indian made musket barrel, and gee it well exceeded the proof house pressures, then by the previous arguments, ALL Indian made musket barrels are now good quality.

Incidentally, the proof house standards in Italy and England are the same by law.

veteran arms

LD

 

[mykeal]

Post hoc ergo proctor hoc.

 

[JanZ]

None of the above.

Ruger Old Army.