Muzzle Loader Quality

[FishDFly]

The discussion of T/C and Lyman quality reminded me of something that I have been wondering about for some time.

In reading the Flintlock, Percussion and General M/L sections, it seems there are a lot of discussions about warranty work, reliability and in general poor workmanship in muzzle loading rifles. This goes from poor locks, vent holes not being in the proper place, etc.

For me, the main culprit of failure is the T/C lock. I do not attend matches with out backup locks and trigger assemblies ready to go and the necessary tools to change them to finish a match.

There are some who favor T/C, some like Lyman and then there are those who either hate or like Pedersoli. For the most part these guns all run from $500 to $1000 or so. I would expect for manufactured products in this price range, they would have very few defects.

There does not seem to be as many complaints or failures with manufactured modern guns as there are with M/Ls?

I own more modern guns that M/Ls and I have had more failures with M/Ls than modern guns.

Is this a function of Amercian made versus overseas or what? Is it a function of functionality, some parts move further physically when operating in a M/L than a modern gun?

I was wondering why the difference? I know there is a difference, just do not know why.

RDE

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

It does seem that the T/C lifetime warranty is a very good thing since it seems like everyone who owns one has a tale or two about having to use the warranty. But my Seneca is one of the first ones made and despite a lot of use has never given me a bit of trouble. The custom and semi-custom guns are usually trouble free, but they use the best components and are carefully assembled. Mass produced guns just don't get the same level of attention.

I've never had a failure with any of my muzzleloaders--custom, semi-custom or factory made. And my Italian guns have also been utterly reliable. But they are also thirty or more years old and may have been made to a different and possibly higher standard than the newer ones are. I think the main thing is to give them careful care and maintenance and they will return the favor with years of reliable use.

 

[Mike Brooks]

You might consider that $500 to $1000 doesn't cover the cost of parts on what I would consider a "good" gun.

 

[MSW]

Mike makes a good point ... one of the fellows at the mill where i worked asked me what it would cost if i were to make him a flintlock, and when i told him he was shocked. his take on it was that since you could buy an El-Cheap-O brank 12 guage pump at WalMart, why does it cost three time that for just the parts of a flintlock rifle?

Absent a lengthy discussion of economies of scale, i told him that if i could get the parts for less, i'd be up to my neck in gunbuilding and happier than a pig in swill, but i couldn't dictate what the retail price of much of anything was, and i couldn't give away parts just to compete with a whole different system. I even offered to lend him a ML for the primitive season, but i think he got one of those zipgun inline thingies ... too bad.

make good smoke!

 

[FishDFly]

"Good" is a very subjective word.

For the guy who wants a sports car, me might consider the Mazda Miata a good car, 4 cylinder and fabric seats. Another might consider the Nissan 370Z a good car, over 300 HP and leather seats. Then, there is the guy who considers the Ferrari as a minimum for a good car, over 200 MPH.
They all go down the road, some with a bit more style.

Good is defined by the person, as dictated by his disposable income level.

I have a feeling that most here shoot guns in the $500 to $1000 range with most spending under the $1000 range. This price range is where most of the the discussion happens on quality or the lack of.

RDE

 

[BenCoogle]

I think a lot of it has to do with Muzzleloaders being much more mechanical devices than modern guns. They require the operator to pay much more attention to them than a bolt action 30/'06 that sits in a corner from deer season to deer season.

 

[biliff]

Don't really think there is a difference between modern guns, muzzleloaders or even &(*&-lines. Go over to another board (especially one that's a competitive shooting sport like SASS) and you'll hear the same complaint. I paid $XXX bucks for my new revolver, how come the damn thing needs extra gunsmithing to make it work right? Competitive shooting puts more stress on the gun in one week than most people put their guns thru in a lifetime.

Its probably a price point issue. You can make a bullet proof gun, but at what cost and will people shell out discretionary income on it? Priced a Kreighoff lately?

 

[cowpoke1955]

I have T/C, Lyman and Pedersoli. None of them have ever failed. I have shot in several matches and take only one rifle, as everyone else. Don't remember ever seeing a lock or trigger fail during a match. I agree with others. As long as you properly maintain your rifle, you'll be OK.

 

For the guy who wants a sports car, me might consider the Mazda Miata a good car, 4 cylinder and fabric seats. Another might consider the Nissan 370Z a good car, over 300 HP and leather seats. Then, there is the guy who considers the Ferrari as a minimum for a good car, over 200 MPH.
They all go down the road, some with a bit more style.

Doesn't this sum it up for "custom" muzzleloaders too? When you buy a custom gun, aren't you paying extra for the maker to put together the parts, that anyone can buy? So, really, the quality of the parts themselves is the same in a custom, it's just the "workmanship", or non-functional aspects of the gun that you are paying extra for.

So the quality of "function" may be no better, but the "artwork" aspect is better. Anyone can put the parts together, but the professional gun maker can put them together "better". Isn't that it? Unless, of course, the maker is forging all the metal parts himself, then that would be another aspect of quality, but I assume most custom makers are buying the parts ready made.

 

[renovato]

A lot of good points have been made so far, and I agree with all of them. I think I'll throw in my 2 cents too. One thing not mentioned was the engineering. Modern guns are designed around modern production processes and materials, using knowledge gained over decades or even centuries. This allows for streamlining manufacture while making a stronger, more efficient product.

The old muzzleloaders were designed with the knowledge and manufacturing methods of the times. They have excessively long hammer throws compared to modern designs. Many of them use flat springs which don't have the life of the coil springs we use today. They didn't understand stress points as well as we do now. The locks and triggers are primitive compared to the more modern designs, some of which have the mechanical beauty of a finely made clockwork.

Today's traditional muzzleloaders are still built, for the most part, according to those old designs, and like the falling loading lever on the Walker, they keep many of the original flaws. This is what draws us to them in the first place, but I think between the original design weaknesses and the company's cutting corners, like the soft metal that's common in Italian revolvers, this is what causes the problems. I'm sure many of the original guns shared the same problems as we're encountering today. I see it as keeping in the spirit of the originals.

That said, I really haven't had many problems with my factory made muzzleloaders. A few soft parts in revolvers and a few worn out nipples is about it. All in all, I have more problems and replace far more parts in my modern guns.

 

For the guy who wants a sports car, me might consider the Mazda Miata a good car, 4 cylinder and fabric seats. Another might consider the Nissan 370Z a good car, over 300 HP and leather seats. Then, there is the guy who considers the Ferrari as a minimum for a good car, over 200 MPH.
They all go down the road, some with a bit more style.

Doesn't this sum it up for "custom" muzzleloaders too? When you buy a custom gun, aren't you paying extra for the maker to put together the parts, that anyone can buy? So, really, the quality of the parts themselves is the same in a custom, it's just the "workmanship", or non-functional aspects of the gun that you are paying extra for.

So the quality of "function" may be no better, but the "artwork" aspect is better. Anyone can put the parts together, but the professional gun maker can put them together "better". Isn't that it? Unless, of course, the maker is forging all the metal parts himself, then that would be another aspect of quality, but I assume most custom makers are buying the parts ready made.

That's not really all there is to it. I do make a lot of my parts from rough stock in my own shop, but even the off the shelf parts I buy rarely come in a condition that I consider acceptable. And some castings/kits are little better than junk. What a good Custom builder does is take those same parts that anybody could buy and refine them to a point that goes beyond what anyone could buy off the shelf. It's not just the art it's the knowledge, skill, patience and experience of the builder that make these parts worth the extra money.
I'll agree that anybody can buy a lock from one of the suppliers, but how many people can polish all of it's working surfaces to mirror finish and make every thing function with the precision of a Swiss watch. Not near as many would be my guess. And then add the "art" to the non-functioning parts.

That makes perfect sense. The buyer has to decide if paying extra for that will justify the cost of a custom, or can they have their factory lock and trigger "tuned" and have a pretty good gun.

 

[Vaino]

My first purchase of a MLer was in 1976 and the item was a SXS percussion shotgun from Navy Arms. After a one day inspection, I called Val Forget {owner} and told him I was very disappointed in the quality of the SXS and in a nice way reiterated approx. 15 quality problems among which was that when the triggers were pulled, the hammers went back first and then came forward and had very hard pulls in the area of 8-10 lbs. After a short silence his exact words were..."Did you think you bought a Purdy?". It was shipped back w/o incidence. I then bought a TC "Hawken" kit which I still have today and have had no problems w/ it what so ever. Wanted something a little more PC or HC so started to accumulate components for a Beck LR and soon found out that the quality of the flintlocks was lousy so ordered a Siler kit and used that. The gist of this post is that I'm thankful for the poor quality of components in those years because it "forced" me to "build my own". Until Chambers introduced his locks, I used Siler kits for my LRs because a couple of times I tried flintlocks from various suppliers and it was the same old story..."poor quality". I do think however that the quality of factory MLers and various components from suppliers available today is much improved since 1978.....Fred

 

[roundball]

For me, the main culprit of failure is the T/C lock. I do not attend matches with out backup locks and trigger assemblies ready to go and the necessary tools to change them to finish a match.

Murphy's Law being what it is...particularly if you're using T'C's old style lock...I agree when attending something like a match or going some distance for a hunt supports the logic of taking a spare lock for example...I've carried a spare new style T/C lock in my shooting box for years now but have never had to use it.

The only things I've ever had to replace on a T/C lock are the flints and flint leathers...just got back from the range a while ago....50cal T/C Hawken, another 50 shots, and not a single lock problem...and this is the 3rd 50 shot range session on the same 3/4"w x 7/8"L Fuller BEF...pretty decent quality I'd say.

:hmm: Now that I think about it, wasn't somebody just recently giving private instructions to a member about T/C frizzens needing to be hardened :hmm:
Maybe my .50cal's mass produced T/C frizzen with its 3000-4000 shots on it is the exception to the rule...no, wait...my .45cal has about 4000 shots on it...then there's my .40cal with about 3000 shots on it's frizzen... :wink:

I think its safe to say that I'm either the luckiest guy on the planet or T/C's redesigned locks have everything dialed in right...
:thumbsup:

 

[nw_hunter]

Right on :thumbsup: And I think they qualify as a (good)gun, and just think! The whole gun for around 500.00

 

[roundball]

I'll be glad when the Virginia gets here because believe it or not, I have never bought myself a new sidelock muzzleloader before...they've all been a complete used ML...or a used stock and a new barrel upgrade, etc...so in that sense it'll be 'different'...but beyond that:

I currently have a very attractive walnut half stocked T/C Hawken .58cal with a 33" GM barrel, and I couldn't ask for a rifle to be any more accurate than the GM .58cal barrel is.

The Virginia will be a very attractive maple full stocked .58cal with a 39" Rice barrel...hope to christen it with a good buck this fall

 

[nw_hunter]

Be sure and post a pic. , and good luck with that Buck.

 

[FishDFly]

Can the discussion please return to the original questions? I was really hoping to learn why the quality and reliability of production M/Ls is not up to par with a lot of peoples expectations for their investment dollars.

It's people here who are voicing their concerns about production guns, not custom guns. One example is there is a following for Lyman flint locks, but each post say you have to drill out the touch hole to achieve realible igintion, does that make sense on a $500 gun?

If you buy a custom made rifle I would expect perfection, nothing less.

It seems production guns are lacking, how come? If they are lacking, how come people are still recommending them here?

Thanks

RDE

 

[tg]

There are a lot of production guns that give good service and are accurate and will give a person many years of service, TC and Lyman are likekly the best, Pedorsoli has a good fan base, any can have a problem due to the nature of the 18th century technology in the lock mechanism, custom guns usually have a higher level of quality awareness buy the builder if he wants to stay in buisness, some who were pretty well thought of have fallen from grace at times it is only human. Part of what you get in a good custom gun can be a piece of history, this is not there with the production ones but is also not an item sought after by all.It may well be that with some production guns peoples expectations are higher than the particular gun warrents, I sometimes find it hard to believe folks are buying new imports for $600-700 or more when good used or new in the white domestic guns are available for a little more if one shops around, I picked up a finished Chambers gun plus all the acces. for less than the price of the parts, it can happen.

 

[roundball]

Can the discussion please return to the original questions?

Sorry about that Richard.


The Counter-View:

The quality of all my "production muzzleloaders" is exactly up to par with my expectations for my investment dollars.

T/C Hawkens are an outstanding muzzleloader for the money...they are affordable, attractive, strong quality, reliable, accurate, with a high resale value and outstanding lifetime warranty.

They have given me a wealth of shooting and hunting enjoyment over the past 15-16 years at relatively low cost with only an occasional product issue which was resolved by T/C immediately at no charge.

 

[Swampman]

Most problems are operator error. Any caplock gun is normally a good one. Mass produced flintlock guns on the other hand rarely are.