pedersoli

[varsity07840]

I'd like to know what Mr.Adler had to do to get a patched .614 ball down a choked .620(?) bore.

[Dave Marsh]

Daryl, thanks for the input.  I have some emails out to several auction houses. 

Dave

[bones92]

I've had a few Pedersoli muzzleloaders, and still have two of the "full size" variants, one in flint and the other in percussion.  These are rifles with the ~42" barrels, not the earlier "mini" size rifles with barrels around 35".

I just shot the flintlock for the first time.  It shot very well (when I did my part).  The front sight blade came out of the base, but otherwise it functioned great (and I prefer to install sights that fit my taste, anyway).

My Pedersoli "Blue Ridge" in .32 shoots great, too.

Here's my synopsis:  Pedersoli rifles are an EXCELLENT rifle for the price... IF you buy one used.   I would NOT buy one at MSRP (i.e. $700-900).   Why not?  Because I see superb custom rifles on our own Trader forum for not much more ($900-1200) and I'd take a custom rifle over a production rifle every time.   But I've never paid more than about $350 for a used Pedersoli in excellent shape.

I'm surprised Pedersoli doesn't follow a more historically-correct stock pattern (like a Southern Mtn Rifle or other well-defined school) and either tapered or swamped barrels.

Anyway, I still prefer my custom-built rifles, but the Pedersolis are a great entry-level rifle.  After all, anyone who sticks around the traditional muzzleloader community will acquire several rifles, and usually they acquire custom rifles over time.

[Jim Kibler]

What I find off putting is that there are things that could be done better / more historically correct etc. if they had the knowledge and desire to do so.  Obviously some compromises have to be made based on their production process and price point, but things could definetely be done better.

These are lower end production guns, though and I'll bet 99.9% of buyers don't know any different or don't care.  Their success shows they have filled a void.

All the best,
Jim

[bones92]

Jim, exactly.  The majority of entrants into muzzleloading don't want to drop $1200+ on a rifle.  They're not sure if they will like it, and they assume a Pedersoli is as good as anything else.

Then they attend muzzleloading events, and they see and handle fine custom rifles, and pretty soon they're eager to order a Kibler rifle...    Like me!

[bones92]

I will add one more thing... another reason so many start off with a Traditions/CVA, Pedersoli and similar foreign production rifles is because that's what you find on the Cabela's website and the Dixie Gun Works site.  That's what they may find in a gun shop... given that many shops won't carry used muzzleloaders, so they only stock new.  In short, they often buy them because they don't know where to find custom rifles.  And if they did stumble upon our trader, the $900+ threshold for a custom rifle (usually more like $1200+) can deter many.   At least until they figure out that a custom rifle is so much more enjoyable to use.

[JW]

Has anyone seen one of Pedersoli’s ’53 Enfields up close? They re-vamped that particular gun based largely on the consultation of some folks who knew what the heck they were talking about and the result was the best reproduction Enfield made. On the flipside, their ’56 2-band Enfield is a mess. They decided (for whatever reason) not to re-vamp that gun.

My point is this: Pedersoli is fully capable of producing both high quality AND historically accurate guns which makes it all the more frustrating that most of their guns only fall into the first category. If Jim Kibler can do what he’s done with limited resources, Pedersoli could produce any number of historically accurate military guns if they wanted to invest in that (and at least plausible civilian arms). Unfortunately, I don’t think there’s enough incentive to do what they did with the ’53 to most of their guns. In that case there was a big enough market who were interested in accurate repros AND competition from other makers that caused them to differentiate. With the Brown Bess, for example, the only real competition they have is Indian repros (super cheap) and custom guns (not super cheap). They clearly don’t see a need to fine tune a long land pattern or any other variation because Europeans and North Americans are going to buy their Bess repro anyway.

[Mike Brooks]

Has anyone seen one of Pedersoli’s ’53 Enfields up close? They re-vamped that particular gun based largely on the consultation of some folks who knew what the heck they were talking about and the result was the best reproduction Enfield made. On the flipside, their ’56 2-band Enfield is a mess. They decided (for whatever reason) not to re-vamp that gun.

My point is this: Pedersoli is fully capable of producing both high quality AND historically accurate guns which makes it all the more frustrating that most of their guns only fall into the first category. If Jim Kibler can do what he’s done with limited resources, Pedersoli could produce any number of historically accurate military guns if they wanted to invest in that (and at least plausible civilian arms). Unfortunately, I don’t think there’s enough incentive to do what they did with the ’53 to most of their guns. In that case there was a big enough market who were interested in accurate repros AND competition from other makers that caused them to differentiate. With the Brown Bess, for example, the only real competition they have is Indian repros (super cheap) and custom guns (not super cheap). They clearly don’t see a need to fine tune a long land pattern or any other variation because Europeans and North Americans are going to buy their Bess repro anyway.

Well, there you go. When you get right down to it if it's cheap enough people will buy it and make excuses it's "close enough". I found if you can sell a gun on the cheap guys will line up to buy them because "They're a good gun.....for the money". Look at all this India crapola people clamber after....good grief!

[ron w]

wouldn't it be wonderful if muzzloading was popular enough that everyone had a $1000 or so rifle...... think how popular it would be if the entry level guns didn't exist.

[Mike Brooks]

wouldn't it be wonderful if muzzloading was popular enough that everyone had a $1000 or so rifle...... think how popular it would be if the entry level guns didn't exist.

We can dream can't we?

[bones92]

wouldn't it be wonderful if muzzloading was popular enough that everyone had a $1000 or so rifle...... think how popular it would be if the entry level guns didn't exist.

I totally get Mike Brooks' comments, but Ron W is dead-on right... if I had to jump right in with a $1K rifle, I probably wouldn't be into muzzleloaders right now.

Also, "better" isn't necessarily what everyone wants.  Sometimes "good enough" is fine with the guy who only wants to shoot occasionally and/or hunt during ML season.

[ron w]

a dream it would be, Mike.     that said,....if it weren't for the inlines at Fleet Farm and Wally-world, most states probably wouldn't even have a muzzle loader deer season.

[Mike Brooks]

a dream it would be, Mike.     that said,....if it weren't for the inlines at Fleet Farm and Wally-world, most states probably wouldn't even have a muzzle loader deer season.

By my dim recollection, first they made the muzzleloading deer season then they started making inline muzzleloaders. If it wasn't for ML deer season inlines probably wouldn't even exist today. My neighbor has one, he loves it. Takes it during shotgun season as well, he rarely misses with it.

[bob in the woods]

I use my muzzleloaders during the regular gun season. The separate season didn't come until later on , here, and then it was always after the regular season, in Dec.    Often, the deer had yarded up by then , up here in the woods. Hunters in S. W. Ontario farm country do well though during B.P season.   

[ron w]

many states didn't have a muzzleloader season until the popularity of inlines created disparity between regular high power gun hunters and the muzzleloader hunters that suggested the high power hunters had an advantage because they could shoot so much farther. I think the advent of in lines was a natural progression that resulted from manufacturers wanting an easier way to use a muzzle loader to be loaded. in my state, the muzzle loader season came along right about the same time in lines started gaining popularity. the argument was the muzzleloaders were handicapped by range, just like archers and they should be able to have their own season because of it...... and of course,.... that opened the argument for climbing trees as well.