First fireing of the new Chaparal 1866

[Marvin S]

Thought I would report on my new Chaparral 1866 short rifle in 45LC. The wood looks to be made of piss elm with cheap walnut stain and no use of grain filler. I think the trigger and hammer springs where swapped around as the trigger spring feels to be made for a Mack truck and the hammer spring for a Toyota. Overall the gun is fitted well and seems to function well except for one thing. At first it would take two hits to set the primers off and fire the gun. Maybe that Toyota hammer spring and the fact that the firing pin has a very large flat end on it that looks like a 1/8in pin punch. This did seem to go away after a few shots but I did not bring much ammo for it. May have to remove the firing pin and round it a bit.

The gun did shoot reasonably well for its first time out at about 2.5in @35yards

[Buckshot]

.............A bit of shooting may improve things, but it won't tighten up a spring :-)

..............Buckshot

[Firebricker]

It's a shame to have to send a brand new rifle to a smith for an action job just to make it reliable but sounds like thats what it's going to take. The good thing is it will probably turn out to be a real good shooter after that. FB

[looseprojectile]

It is a sad time we are living in.
My dad used to say "You can't beat a man at his own game". He was right then, about forty years ago. Times have changed :roll:.
Now I expect to have to tweak and finish any new gun that comes into my possesion. This is attributed to labor costs and lack of pride in workmanship at the factory level.
Sorry that you have experienced this on such an expensive example.
I have developed an attitude of handling and examining a new gun before purchasing it. Then I will expect to have to tune it to my expectations. A sad commentary on an industry that has been successfull at policing it's own product quality.
I think this has turned into a rant:coffee:.

Life is good

[Freebore]

So, do you like it? It seems to shoot good.

[Marvin S]

It is pretty sad when many years ago with much less technology guns could be built to such high standards with a fit and finish that almost no one reproduces today. I do believe that most people could not find there ass it it was not attached. Freebore, I will take the thing apart some time and tinker with it. I guess I should consider my self lucky after reading some of the horror stories about these on SASS.

[Jbar4Ranch]

Chaparral has a *less than stellar* reputation. My '76 went back to Charter Arms not once, but twice for replacement. The third one was within my capabilities to repair and it works OK now.

Some of the worst problems:

Side plates so ill fitting they didn't properly mate with their corresponding dovetails in the frame
Bowed/bent sideplates
Excessive headspace
Multiple hammer strikes to set off primers
Hammer would catch in the half cock notch when squeezed instead of jerked
Extractor misaligned with its relief cut in the barrel and would hit when closing the action
HORRIBLE accuracy - 24 inch "groups" at 20 yards/over 8' at 50 yards with black, smokeless, and a large variety of bullet weights & sizes
Extractor would slip over the case rims and leave them sitting on the carrier only a quarter inch out of the chamber

[enfield]

:Fire: in there defence, i recently got a chaparral SAA colt copy, 4.75 inch barrel in 44-40 and it is very nicely made and shoots great. ( yes i had to do a little sight work but I think thats a given ) it is a match to my pietta and the price was within my budget. ( well, i had no groceries or gas money for 2 weeks but thats still a budget isn't it ??)[smilie=1:.

[Speedo66]

I have a Model '73 Winchester, 38-40, made by Winchester in 1889. The fit and finish are pretty good, and it functions perfectly. Trigger pull is pretty smooth. It will group at an inch or two at 25 yards.

The wood appears to be actual walnut, and while a little bruised and scarred after 110 years as might be expected, it doesn't sound much worse than that on the new gun.

So, we've come a long way..... or have we?