CS Richmond 'noted for its accuracy'?

[cwpilgrim]

A number of vendors advertise the Armi Sport '62 CS Richmond with the following quotation:

"Please note that this C.S. Richmond is noted for its accuracy"

Accurate:
It shoots straight?
It is a close copy of an original?

If it is the latter, how close is it, really, compared to the Armi Sport '42?

[Nighthawk]

Re: CS Richmond 'noted for its accuracy'?

John,
It probably won't do either without some serious work. The Italian repros have not been renown for their quality control, nor for their dedication to original specs in producing reproductionl arms. The manufacturers are interested in ease of manufacturing and financial efficiency in the process. However depending on your level of financial dedication and interest in authenticity, one can be re worked into a kinda sorta representation of a Richmond.

Regards,

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: CS Richmond 'noted for its accuracy'?

The Armi-Sport US M1842 is the best "out of the box" reproduction civil war musket available, bar none. There is no second place.

Various folks may make a case for Miroku '61's, and there is a valid debate there... but they don't make Miroku '61's anymore.

How's that for an unvarnished opinion? ;-)

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: CS Richmond 'noted for its accuracy'?

Hallo!

In my mind...

"Accuracy" refers to shooting, not to "historical faithfulness" or its "relationship" to originals.

And, having been a competitive shooter in the N-SSA (with a shoe box full of team and individual medals somewhere), "accuracy" can mean different things to different "competitors" and "non-competitors."

In brief and to over-generalize...

What the Italians did was to take their M1861 "Springfield" and make enough changes to have it look like a "Richmond." All of the "authenticity issues" with the original M!861 carry over into their "Richmonds."
Plus, obviously, neither do some he "fine details" or the "devil in the details" of Richmond Arsenal production pieces do not make it into the Italian reproductions. Oh, pick on something... okay, riveted instead of screwed nsoecaps.

And that revolves things around to the Broken Record discussion of the Sliding Scale of Imperfection and the whole "Why is the Hobby so strict on clothes, gear, and activities and so lax on firearms" discussion I will not bring up here as it is not part of the question.

;) :)

And that revolves around to younger lads who may not get the "broken record" analogy in today's techno world. ;) :)

Just a-funnin' on a dreary, gloomy, rainy, and flood warning day trying to keep slowly rising water from getting to my stuff in the basement day. :)

Curt

And moreso on the early produciton repros where they Italians were brass plating the buttplpates and nosecaps to save money.

[csuniforms]

Re: CS Richmond 'noted for its accuracy'?

Hello, I used to work for Lodgewood Mfg. a few years back and did sell a lot of reproduction firearms. On accuracy or claims of accuracy, it was hit or miss. Some of the barrels coming out of Italy were machined well as to grooving, and some were oversized or the grooving was shallow or uneven. If you got a good one, with a little work it could shoot accurately. As to the original Richmond muskets, the same goes for them. If the barrel maker was a good one and he took his time, you had an excellent grooving and barrel for accuracy. If he was rushed or his tools were dull, you were shooting marbles out of a .580 pipe.

CSuniforms
Tom Arliskas

[Craig L Barry]

Re: CS Richmond 'noted for its accuracy'?

A number of vendors advertise the Armi Sport '62 CS Richmond with the following quotation:

"Please note that this C.S. Richmond is noted for its accuracy"

Accurate:
It shoots straight?
It is a close copy of an original?

If it is the latter, how close is it, really, compared to the Armi Sport '42?

Hmmmm, here is how I always interpreted that. I thought they were referring to the original CS Richmond, as in
"we are offering a reproduction of a Civil War weapon which was known for its shooting accuracy at the time."
Obviously the reproduction is not particularly good or anything special as a shoooter. As Wickett points out,
none of them come close in terms of historical feature accuracy to the Armi Sport US 1842 out of the box.

I thought they were trying to impart a bit of cachet to what is otherwise just a dressed down US 1861 marked
"Richmond" instead of "Springfield." You know the sizzle not the steak..."marketing."

[Fencible]

Re: CS Richmond 'noted for its accuracy'?

Ill second the point about the accuracy of the 1842. I have an original and a repro close

Shawn Stern

[Craig L Barry]

Re: CS Richmond 'noted for its accuracy'?

A trained eye can spot the differences between an original US 1842 and the repro pretty fast, but (for example)
Enfield repros need a few hundred dollars in work to get to where the US 1842 is at coming out of the box. And
you can't even get an Armi Sport US 1861 to that point no matter what you invest in the project.

We ask, "How come the reproduction Civil War muskets aren't better?" Maybe the question should be "How did
they get the 1842 so close to right?" It is starting to look like a fluke.