Why the hatred for CVA?

I take it you are talking about the CVA side lock and flint lock guns and not all CVA's? One reason I don't care for CVA as much as the other brands of the period is that some of the early guns such as the above mentioned colonial pistols were kind of junky. I never could (and still do not) understand why the Spanish guns use the offset hammer and notched stock when I haven't seen that on the other modern guns or orignials, for that matter. (This is the indent behind the lock for the hammer to clear at full cock.)

I think you nailed it, roundball. And does that PC/HC vetted rifle have a STEEL barrel, bored rather than forged from iron straps? For such a large nit, the PC crowd refuse to pick it.

I've only owned one CVA and it always performed very well. I thought it was sort of "junky" but that was in the looks department. It was accurate and easy to shoot. Now, I never met a gun I didn't like - not those...seen them but never met them - so "hate" was never an issue.

arcticap said:

The US Code defining an antique firearm uses the word replica. That would seem to indicate that any antique firearm that wasn't manufactured in or before 1898 is by definition a replica under Federal law.

See also Title 18 USC, Sec. 921 (a)(1)(16) "The term 'antique firearm' means -

(A) any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; or

(B) any replica of any firearm describe in subparagraph (A) if such replica -

(i) is....

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

And your point is? How does this fit in with the topic? I think tg is right, lock it down.

As I posted earlier one of the main reasons some people hate CVA's is that beginners using them can and often do , beat shooters with high dollar custom made rifles. Some people just don't like being beaten by someone who isn't "pure "! :hmm: . I remember many years ago when my eyes were better walking into to a club shoot where I had not shot before and the man taking the registration noticed my plain spanish style stock and said," Where did you get that thing? Make it yourself?" I replied ,"yep! " After the paper targets were pulled and I had scored 97 out of a possible 100 and the closest to me had an 86. The man who registered me came over and asked to look more closely at my gun. He then said fairly loudly, " Hey this is a Douglas barrel on this hunk of wood! " I have personally seen many matches won by people who shot CVA,s that have nothing done to them but having the locks tuned. This can upset some people who spend thousands on custom built guns. :idunno:

J.D. said:

ebiggs said:

Go for it!

Click to expand...

Post#848553

The thing of it is, is that if you walked out of the woods in 1800, into town with that Pedersoli in hand everyone would recognize you had a flintlock rifle in your hands.
And not look out of place like you had three eyeballs in your head.
Isn’t that HC/PC enough? It is for me.

I found this one in only a coupla minutes. Need I go on?

God bless

Click to expand...

Mr. J. D.,
No, sir, it is not. Yes, you need go on!
This is a question asking for clarification for the level of correctness that is acceptable.
Since I am not an HC/PC guy, I simply wanted to know the standards.
I have not made any claim my rifle is HC/PC.
In addition, I do believe this is relevant to the “hatred of CVA” so it is keeping within the bounds of the thread. My supposition is HC/PC guys tend to not like any gun that is not HC/PC.

God bless you, too.

Va.Manuf.06 said:

arcticap said:

The US Code defining an antique firearm uses the word replica. That would seem to indicate that any antique firearm that wasn't manufactured in or before 1898 is by definition a replica under Federal law.

See also Title 18 USC, Sec. 921 (a)(1)(16) "The term 'antique firearm' means -

(A) any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; or

(B) any replica of any firearm describe in subparagraph (A) if such replica -

(i) is....

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

And your point is? How does this fit in with the topic? I think tg is right, lock it down.

Click to expand...

My point is that is that if a muzzle loader wasn't made before 1899, it's only a replica under the law and all replicas are treated equally.
So if someone isn't shooting an original then they're just shooting another replica of some sort.
A replica is a replica is a replica, with the main difference being cost.
That's probably why some folks don't like CVA's, because they were simply too affordable or what they considered to be "too low class".

J.D. said:

Just keeping him honest, Swampy.

Well said tg.

IMHO, nothing more needs to be said about this topic.

God bless

Click to expand...

Mr. J.D.,
Sorry, but I responed to your first reply than read this one.
Keep at it man, knock yourself out!

God bless you, also.

My point is that is that if a muzzle loader wasn't made before 1899, it's only a replica under the law and all replicas are treated equally.
So if someone isn't shooting an original then they're just shooting another replica of some sort.
A replica is a replica is a replica, with the main difference being cost.
That's probably why some folks don't like CVA's, because they were simply too affordable or what they considered to be "too low class".

Click to expand...

You are so far off base it's laughable.

Taking a bunch of parts from three different historical eras (many years apart) and putting them all together into the same gun, does not make a "replica". It makes a joke. Yes, under the law, it is a "replica", but that has nothing to do with this discussion and you bloody well know it.

People seem to dislike CVA for a couple reasons”¦

1. Poor quality
2. Not historically accurate.

Whether they are considered "replicas" under the law is irrelevant.

ohio ramrod said:

As I posted earlier one of the main reasons some people hate CVA's is that beginners using them can and often do , beat shooters with high dollar custom made rifles. Some people just don't like being beaten by someone who isn't "pure "! :hmm: . I remember many years ago when my eyes were better walking into to a club shoot where I had not shot before and the man taking the registration noticed my plain spanish style stock and said," Where did you get that thing? Make it yourself?" I replied ,"yep! " After the paper targets were pulled and I had scored 97 out of a possible 100 and the closest to me had an 86. The man who registered me came over and asked to look more closely at my gun. He then said fairly loudly, " Hey this is a Douglas barrel on this hunk of wood! " I have personally seen many matches won by people who shot CVA,s that have nothing done to them but having the locks tuned. This can upset some people who spend thousands on custom built guns. :idunno:

Click to expand...

I don't know anything about this, I don't go to rondy's or any woods walks or other shoots involving muzzleloaders so I'll have to take your word on that. This probably has happened at one time or another and caused some to storm off miffed, I would'nt doubt it but it certainly is not the reason I posted on this thread. I actually could not point you to anyone I know personally that has one and I have never seen one in 30 years at my club, ever. I helped turned on 5 people close to me into this sport and everyone I helped buy a T/C of some kind.

arcticap said:

Va.Manuf.06 said:

arcticap said:

The US Code defining an antique firearm uses the word replica. That would seem to indicate that any antique firearm that wasn't manufactured in or before 1898 is by definition a replica under Federal law.

See also Title 18 USC, Sec. 921 (a)(1)(16) "The term 'antique firearm' means -

(A) any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; or

(B) any replica of any firearm describe in subparagraph (A) if such replica -

(i) is....

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

And your point is? How does this fit in with the topic? I think tg is right, lock it down.

Click to expand...

My point is that is that if a muzzle loader wasn't made before 1899, it's only a replica under the law and all replicas are treated equally.
So if someone isn't shooting an original then they're just shooting another replica of some sort.
A replica is a replica is a replica, with the main difference being cost.
That's probably why some folks don't like CVA's, because they were simply too affordable or what they considered to be "too low class".

Click to expand...

Sorry but not every Replica is created equal.

Swampy said:

Sorry but not every Replica is created equal.

Click to expand...

Every replica is more equal than not equal.
Everyone knows the saying about how to put on a pair of pants.
They all work the same way. :wink:

To be sure we're all clear...my issue withy this constant manure has absolutely nothing to do what-so-ever with whether or not something meets some magical criteria of being period correct.

My issue is two fold:

1)The constant attitude and disruption by self proclaimed "pc historians" who try to lord their personal views of what PC means on somebody eles;
The same few constantly display an 'attitude' they they think they have god granted rights to wade into a general discussion and start this manure.

2) That those few constantly do it here in these generalized threads, instead of down in the historic section where thtread counting is suppose to be.

Zonie...it looks like you're up again...maybe you could trot out copies of the rule from the historical section and sticky them up here in these categories for better visibility.

The original topic here is "Why the hatred for CVA". It is logical to place it in this forum because the poster (presumably) did not know what kind of answers would be made and whether any of these answers would drift into other areas. I note that this discussion has gone on for some time (past the productive point IMHO) and has not been moved.

The original question has been answered. To summarize the answers seems simple enough: a) The manufacturing quality of the CVA guns has not been consistent - taking the various posters at their word (& I have no reason not to) some people have gotten CVAs that shoot well and others have not. b) The CVA guns fail to meet the PC standards of events and people who place a high standard on being PC.

So for anyone considering a CVA, it is simply a matter of being aware that the guns are not acceptable at all events and that the individual gun being considered may be a good shooter as is or may need a lot of work to perform well. Look carefully, consider the price and reflect on your plans for the gun. Be an informed buyer & hopefully you will enjoy your purchase be it a CVA or some other gun.

:surrender: :surrender: :surrender: