Author Topic: Kevin Tinny - Part 5: Armi-Sport/Chiappa  (Read 704 times)

Offline Two Flints

  • Spencer Shooting Society Founder & Moderator
  • Deputy Marshal
  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 2694
  • Moderating SSS IS a "Labor of Love"!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 2
Kevin Tinny - Part 5: Armi-Sport/Chiappa
« on: April 16, 2020, 12:12:26 PM »
Armisport/Chiappa, via Taylor’s & Co, Dixie Gun Works/Cimarron etc. 

PAGES of Armisport information can be found by searching CAS/SSS for “Taylors” and “56-50”. 
Posts may contain partial information and typo’s that are often corrected later. 
Reading ALL the posts of a MEMBER can reveal important information NOT related to the TITLE.

Neither Ken Howell nor Larry Romano recall exactly when they began their Spencer’s.
BOTH Ken and Larry finished theirs in 1995. 
In early 1996, Ken’s SINGLE example, the “Wisconsin Gun” as it became known at N-SSA, was taken to
N-SSA for Production Approval that was granted in May 1996.

In LATE 1996, The Piper Group operating as Spencer Repeating Arms with Ken as Director of Operations, began taking PRE-PRODUCTION deposits for the carbine.
So, during the SAME time period Ken was WITH Piper, the single Spencer was taken to N-SSA.
It seems that Ken’s Spencer went in THREE directions between 1996 and 1998:  Piper, N-SSA and Italy.
Romano’s was Production Approved in Oct 1996.

For Ken to have BEEN with Piper as late as DEC 1996, per the Piper Group letterhead and “FIT” into a reasonable tooling and production lead time it seems that at least 18 months were needed to tool-up and produce the first batch of 44 Russian carbines that BEGAN with a 2001 date coding. 

That would put Ken’s trip to Italy in 1998 - 1999.  That ‘98-’99 trip means it was at least a year or possibly two ATER his N-SSA, 1996 Production Approval. 
Based on the 2001 DATE CODE stamping on #M00010, 44 Russian Armisport, it seems that Armisport Spencers were perhaps a year SOONER than the DELIVERIES OF FINISHED Fletcher-Bidwell’s because the F-B’s of DIXIE’s and “Geo’s” were DELIVERED in May/June 2002. 

“Major 2” on CAS/SSS posted that A’sport 44 Russian carbines were in the Taylor’s warehouse in 2001.

A Thread on CAS/SSS by Tuolumne Lawman of June 1, 2005 indicated that the FIRST Armisport Spencer RIFLES were in 56-50.  A THREAD of October 12, 2007, noted that A’Sport Spencer RIFLES had CARBINE sling bars and rings!  A’Sport was USING carbine receivers for some RIFLES!

THE ARMISPORT/CHIAPPA Spencer HAS HAD MANY CHANGES TO ITS MECHANICAL PARTS OVER AT LEAST 15 YEARS.    Ken does NOT know WHO engineered ALL the OTHER changes to the Armisport/Chiappa AFTER his Italian trip to resolve 44 Russian issues. 

The Armisports I have examined and photographed have:
Caliber at 12:00 on the rear of the barrel just ahead of the receiver.
Tops of receivers have “1860 Spencer” on them and a serial number on the top rear wrist of the receiver.
Date code stamp on the barrel, located under the upper rear forearm section at 9:00.

Taylor’s descriptions REPEATEDLY convey that their Spencer is an 1865 version!
Photo’s taken at Taylor’s in May, 2018 of a 44-40 RIFLE # 16E04495, show BOTH “1860” on top of the receiver AND an unusual, WIDE cartridge feed guide with NO screw in its top.  More about the guide later.
A CAS/SSS member shared that the FIRST VERSION of the Armisport/Chiappa/Taylor’s Spencer carbine was in 44 Russian because the ITALIAN government, which must approve each “cartridge”, HAD APPROVED THE 44 RUSSIAN for the Navy Arms Schofield revolver.  The 56-50 “cartridge” had NOT been Italian government approved and Taylor’s did not want to wait for the 56-50’s government approval.

ONLY the Armisport/Chiappa, which the Taylors & Co website specifically lists AS an 1865 CARBINE, is
N-SSA Production approved.  As of March 2020, the locations of the Armisport/Chiappa RIFLE barrel bands and front sight remain off-spec and the RIFLE is NOT N-SSA approved.   But, at least ONE Armisport/Chiappa Spencer RIFLE has been privately converted to the required N-SSA dimensions and has been “Individually Approved” by N-SSA.  It has been used with success at Fort Shenandoah. 

Armisport 44 RUSSIAN, #M0010, DATE CODED “BP” (indicating 2001) within a rectangle, ON ONLY THE BARREL with NO caliber recited, has only a SMALL portion of the upper block screw visible below the receiver when the lever is closed.  LATER versions present the screw MORE visibly with the lever CLOSED. 
It has the correct NARROW 1860 cartridge feed guide, but later ones have the wide guide. 
It HAS a Stabler cutoff that was NOT on either the 1860 or 1865 Models! 

#M0010’s owner said he heard rumors of a Taylor Spencer REPRO in 1998, but it took until 200l for him to get his from the FIRST BATCH with a 2001 date code which was BEFORE “Geo” received his #43 Fletcher-Bidwell in 2002. 

M0010 does NOT have a serial number ANYWHERE on the receiver, only on the barrel, BUT the receiver is marked on its FACE, behind the forend with “Cat # 12160”.  The owner purchased it via BATF form 4473.   

How this one got through the IMPORT INSPECTION PROCESS without the serial number being VISIBLE ON the receiver remains a mystery.  When, among other things, I shared with A’sport/Chiappa’s Warranty location in Dayton, OH that there was at least one documented Armisport/Chiappa 44 Russian Spencer with NO serial number on the FRAME, the representative said, “that could be so”.  It later arose that “European” guns come into the U.S. from Spain, having serial numbers only on barrels.  But THIS AND the PEDERSOLI Sharps with NO serial number on their FRAMES are ITALIAN produced.   

CAS/SSS Thread dated Sept 12, 2007, “.44 Russian Purchased With Stabler Cutoff” refers to an early Armisport Taylor & Co, 44 Russian with a serial number UNDER M0020 with a STABLER cutoff. 

In several DEC 2019 conversations with a longtime importer of Italian firearms, we discussed the serial number topic and he said that based on his decades of importing Italian firearms: “There was NO WAY that ANY Italian firearm, black powder or NOT, was allowed PAST BATF without SOMETHING “resembling” a serial number ON THE FRAME, being recorded.”  He said the BATF would have disregarded the M0010 on the BARREL and SEARCHED, if necessary, to the point of TOTAL DISASSEMBLY, for “any form of letters and numbers” on the frame.  His educated guess was that the BATF used the “catalog number” as the serial number.  He said that another more recent oddity involves reports of batches of guns put into “Registries” using the MODEL NUMBER instead of the serial number.  In one CANADIAN example, this involved tens of thousands of firearms where the model and caliber of 22 rifles was used AS THE SERIAL NUMBER instead of an OBVIOUS serial number clearly visible ON the frame.  Think about “10-22”.

The upper block opening in receiver of #M0010 is of correct width, but it is visibly LONGER than on an original.  Its HAMMER has the 1860 style nose with NO outside taper of ‘65’s.

Per Taylor’s, Armisport Spencer’s have threads/screws that are METRIC “V”. 

The SIDE from which the upper block screw that also fits through the lever VARIES.
Originals ALL have the HEAD of the LEVER/BLOCK screw on the RIGHT side of the lever.
Romano’s ALL have the head of the same screw coming in from the RIGHT side.
The Fletcher-Bidwell also has the HEAD coming in from the RIGHT side.
Armisport/Chiappa’s UPPER BLOCK SCREWS VARY: 
EARLY ones such as M00010 in 44 Russian, have the screw coming in correctly from the RIGHT, but
later ones, of which there are clear photo’s, such as 16E04495 RIFLE, has the screw head on the LEFT.   

Photos of FOUR Armisport Spencer’s sent in 2019 by an N-SSA member span a WIDE range of serial numbers, all with the upper block screw heads and tips quite visible below the frame. 

ArmiSport Spencer repro’s HAVE a fly on the tumbler, which helps sear and tumbler damage.

As of 2018, the Taylor’s website recites TWIST for their Armisport/Chiappa Spencers:

44-40     36”
44 Rus   20”
45 Colt  16”
45 Sch   20
56-50    24” Some have reported 20”, 22” and 26” twists.
                    Belgian originals had 24” and were reported quite accurate.
The TWIST in ORIGINAL 44 cal pre-war Spencers was 24”!  Hmmm.

CAS/SSS postings by “HERBERT”, who is especially informed, indicate the IDEAL twist for a 56-56 or 56-50 Spencer is 36” – as it IS in ORIGINAL Model 1865’s.  It bothered him that A’Sport insists on a faster 24” twist, which only works with MUCH longer bullets in the 375gr range that reduce powder capacity! 

Herbert’s SSS post of 02SEP2009, includes that Taylor’s Spencer’s are “free-bored” (perhaps indicating a THROAT or LEADE with no rifling) just ahead of the chamber AND have a 24” twist that COMBINE to diminish accuracy with otherwise proven bullet designs, including 515141 shortened to be 360gr.

Experiments by skilled cast bullet shooters over the past 40 years have confirmed that THERE MUST BE SOME CHAMBERED BULLET CONTACT WITH THE RIFLING FOR BEST ACCURACY.  “Bullet JUMP” from case to rifling DIMINISHES accuracy.  This information is presented in PRECISION SHOOTING MAGAZINE, Special Edition #1, 1993.  It is also presented in the NRA’s CAST BULLETS. 

OK, if you pushed through THIS FAR, here is a suggestion:
EVERYTHING that anyone really needs to KNOW about cast bullets and HOW they should be set up to perform well is in:  CAST BULLETS, an NRA BOOK, published in 1979.  If you truly wish to understand the what’s and the why’s and avoid misleading stuff on many INTERNET ‘sites, READ THE BOOK.   

Two items that are often POORLY or erroneously explained on INTERNET ‘sites” are in CAST BULLETS:

Page 115: “Fit In Forcing Cone”.  This short piece details HOW bullets MUST fit into the rifling!
Page   86: “Bench Shooting Cast Bullets”.  This details HOW to HOLD a cast bullet rifle when bench testing. 

Threads/Posts in CAS/SSS recount issues and features in Armisport Spencers:

1.    Herbert posted that he has seen Armisport/Chiappa Spencer carbines with COIL springs instead of
 leaf springs behind the cartridge feed guide. 

2.    Extractors are Lane, single blade or double blade.

3.   Some RIFLES were delivered with CARBINE sling bars and rings.  CAS/SSS Oct. 12, 2007.

4.   Magazine tube FOLLOWERS may be either metal or black/red plastic.

5.   Various rifling twists.

6.   Chambers cut too deep/long.  “Hoot – 3rd Ga” Oct 15, 2006.  Too deep and too much bullet jump.
Hoot had to have his A’Sport RIFLE lined and chambered by Hoyt.

7.   Incorrect location of rifle barrel bands and front sight.

8.   The block SCREW that fits THROUGH the lever and upper block shaft can enter from EITHER side.

9.   The cartridge feed GUIDE varies between the 1860 and 1876 versions.  A WIDE version WITHOUT the screw in top and moveable cut-off section IS AUTHENTIC as pictured in Marcot on page 107 on an EXPERIMENTAL version on 1865 carbine #766 in the SPFLD Armory Collection. 

10.   A CAS/SSS Thread of 20DEC14 by PvtGreg titled: “New 44-40 Spencer Rifle” contains information and a PHOTO of a 2014 version of the Armisport Spencer WITH A DROP LEVER SAFETY on the lower rear right side of the frame.  JKT posted a request for CLEAR photos from any SSS member and NONE responded.  It may be THAT there were only a few of that version.  The photo’s ON SSS clearly show that this “safety” lever is NOT the Stabler cutoff lever on the UNDERSIDE of the receiver/trigger bar.

11.   Firing pins can be either inertia or NON-inertia type.

12.   RIFLE muzzle diameters VARY.

13.   A tumbler “fly” is used to avoid damage to the sear and half-cock notch.

14.   Some receivers have a top opening for the upper block that is VISIBLY LONGER than on originals.

THREE others that did not complete a finished Spencer reproduction:

1.   Spencer Rifle Co, Inc.”. in Portland, TN above Nashville on I-65. 

Bob and Harry said they started in 2002 but never completed a Spencer and got “side-tracked” with CLASS III items!  In 2005 they were making Spencer PARTS and a center-fire UPPER block conversion.   

2.   Alphawolf45: 

A CAS/SSS Thread by “Alphawolf45” of November 25, 2015, entitled “Tang Sight For A .22LR Spencer” stirred curiosity, less about the sight, MORE about the CALIBER.  Steven shared with me that HE HAS progressed with the project, but it is shelved for now.  It is NOT FULLY FUNCTIONAL due to firing pin issues, but he KNOWS what to do to complete it.  There is no stock which will be a project by itself.  This is a SINGLE example.  He has scratch-built a Civil War First Model Maynard, 1892 era Marlin lever action and Winchester Low Wall.  He is NOT presently receptive to inquiries so please wait for any updates to be ADDED to his Thread on CAS/SSS.  Thanks.

3.   Unidentified:

Some N-SSA members recall a person in the early 2000’s attempting to buy original Spencer parts to ASSEMBLE Spencer’s to sell and fund the production of reproduction ones.  While NO specific information has surfaced about this venture, it appears that this PERSON never got going.

Two subjective issues about Spencer reproductions:


All these reproductions can have specific parts and functioning issues. 

The Armisport Spencer Owner’s Manual, page 9 Firing TIP: “…functions best if the lever is moved briskly through its downward and upward travel without hesitation between the downward and upward strokes”. This indicates that Taylor’s & Co recognized the cycling issues with at least 56-50 center-fire rounds. 

For me, the EFFORT to cycle 56-50 rounds with FLAT noses from tube magazine Spencer reproductions took YEARS to master in some of mine.   One would be butter smooth and the next a pain.  It takes EXPERIENCE to cycle a Spencer. 

Romano told me about owners of HIS Spencer’s calling about cycling issues and he would find they were hesitating at the end of the lowering stroke OR LOOKING INTO THE ACTION as the round was cycled.  These lever manipulation aspects are separate from OVER TIGHTENING the lever screw and compressing the receiver against the lever. 

There is a CAS/SSS Thread indicating that an Armisport 56-50 barrel was interchanged with a damaged 44 Russian barrel and it cycled fine using all the other “44” parts.  OK, but I know of another Armisport where its 56-50 internals will NOT cycle rounds, but the 56-50 internals substituted from his relative’s do cycle rounds.   

I believe that the Howell Spencer had functioning issues because Bill Osborne told me it did NOT cycle cartridges from its magazine. 

The other gunsmith’s comments to me about the missing half-cock and initial Board REJECTION are significant.   

Then there is Phil Spangenberger trying to cycle it during a video and deleting portions showing cycling issues. 

Romano’s is THE ONLY SPENCER repro, AS DELIVERED, that has been totally functional across the 75 produced, using AMMO OF VARYING OVERALL LENGTHS with FOUR different cases.  I am not sure WHAT he does that matters.  He only says that HE understands the functioning. 

Cycling peculiarities related to lever ACTIVATION must be understood and mastered.  I have seen several reproduction Spencer’s, including one of my Romano’s, that seemed to have cycling issues.  I have also watched a skilled handler cycle a balky one as if nothing was amiss.  I drove 1500 miles to watch Larry drop-in his cycling dummy rounds of VARYING overall lengths and - butter smooth.  I DIDN’T WANT TO PUT THAT LITTLE BIT OF EXTRA UPWARD/LIFTING FORCE ON THE LEVER and I HAD THE LEVER SCREW TOO TIGHT!

Second:  WHICH are TRUE copies of 1860 “Civil War Era” Spencer’s?

When Spencer submitted HIS samples to the Ordnance Dept, there were NO drawings or dimensions attached BECAUSE Spencer was a “contract” provider.  YEARS of research by Marcot and others, some with access to the now highly shuffled company files in the Cody Museum, have NOT surfaced ANY drawings that appear to be either PRODUCTION drawings or show dimensions.  Also, the “inspection” gauges for chamber and cartridges have NEVER been dimensioned in writing and shared.  Marcot does say that POST WAR SPORTER Spencer’s had THINNER receivers to save weight because that mattered in hunting guns. 

ONLY a series of measurements from originals that appear to be UNALTERED and NOT refinished will indicate a RANGE of dimensions.  Romano is the ONLY one that has shared that HE took dim’s from several late production 1860’s to be sure HIS conformed. 
The “nominal” ROMANO 1860 Spencer RECEIVER dimensions taken from SEVEN of his receivers are:
                                                              RIFLE                                     CARBINE
Receiver Dimension:          R10439  R10022  R10030  C10445  C10030  C10031  C10032  “Range”  Average

Top sides behind barrel         1.229”    1.224”    1.226”    1.230”    1.237”    1.222”    1.220”     .015”       1.227”

Top REAR across flats          1.052      1.056      1.058      1.042      1.056      1.050      1.049       .009         1.052

Bottom behind forend            1.180      1.143      1.152      1.150      1.146      1.146      1.160       .037         1.154

Bottom at lever screw hole      .996        .986        .998      1.013        .972        .975        .984       .041           .989

Rear bottom flats                      .983        .978        .987        .968        .956        .954       .965        .033          .970

Top front FLAT to bottom      2.100      2.080      2.085      2.100      2.140      2.090      2.090       .060        2.100
YEP, good eyes:  The 10030 frame number WAS duplicated.  Larry just smiled.

TAPERS, as best can be measured, average top-bottom .076” and front-rear of .180”.  The combined AVERAGE of (.076” + .180”)/2 = .128” or 1/8th-inch OVERALL, but per side this is roughly 1/16”, which at first might seem significant, but is difficult to SEE with the naked eye when held at half arm’s-length.   The “RANGES” are probably due to hand polishing of the outside surfaces and rounded edges.

Fletcher-Bidwell #28 of Geo. Meyn’s is:  Width across top behind barrel 1.2” and Height of 2.1”. 
These are so close to Romano’s so F-B’s ARE full-sized.

Herbert posted on SSS that ORIGINAL ’65’ and some later model receivers were slightly thinner and LIGHTER. 

Snakeeater’s RIFLE #32638 receiver is 1.255” wide at top and Sporting rifle is 1.155”. 
He thinks the .100” is SIGNIFICANT.   

Chip Smith, “FAZER”, on CAS/SSS shared PHOTO’s of dial Vernier measurements of HIS THIN receiver MILITARY RIFLE, on 31JAN2020:

Width at TOP behind bbl. is 1.096”, Width at bottom behind forend is 1.029”, Width across top just ahead of hammer cut is .975” and TOP to BOTTOM, just behind barrel is 2.10”.  This HEIGHT is SAME as 1860’s SO THAT HEIGHT DIMENSION IS NOT LESS!  Chip’s are .155” thinner across the top.  Chip’s MILITARY receiver is .060” THINNER than Snakeeater’s SPORTING rifle.  So, there ARE military receivers that can be as much as .155” thinner.  This .155” is slightly MORE THAN 1/8” or 1/16” a side!  THIS IS VISIBLE!

Comparing CHIP’s MILITARY receiver to Romano’s AVERAGE dimensions that copies 1860’s, indicates the “thinner” military receiver is LOTS thinner, VISIBLY SO.   But Chip’s is the SAME HEIGHT!
AND, the CAS/SSS photo’s of Chip’s “FAZER’s” THIN military receiver also shows lightening HOLES in BOTH upper and lower blocks, further confirming both Romano’s and Herbert’s comments!

Romano commented that his first-hand work on many original ‘65’s also shows they WERE thinner to “save weight”, but that aspect, per Marcot applies ONLY to post-war SPORTER receivers for 44 bores.  This MARCOT comment is seemingly INCORRECT, given FAZER’s #32638, which may be a “test variant”.  Still, its MILITARY receiver IS THINNER, but the same height!


Threads/Posts discuss the parts interchangeability between modern/original 1860 Spencer’s. 

Howell indicated Armisport parts would interchange in his single example in 56-50, and I suppose that is because IT WAS the basis for the Italian ones.  I do NOT know if original parts interchange.
Howell’s three copies have the Lane extractor.   
The Fletcher-Bidwell is believed to be made from some of the same tooling as Howell’s so the ITALIAN parts relationship probably applies. 

With Romano’s, some original parts will not interchange because of threads and minor dimensional differences with otherwise IDENTICALLY APPEARING internals.  Larry indicated to me that some original parts DO interchange, and that he has used them when requested. These can be mainsprings, barrel bands and butt-plates. I can vouch for this on a few Romano Spencer’s while testing original parts and discovering there ARE variations in ORIGINAL parts.  Larry summarized by saying the main difference is threads.  He did not use square ones for the barrel, receiver and magazine tube.  Other “V” threads are modern versions of older pitches.

ONLY ROMANO Spencer reproductions are (modern English “V” threads, the 56-50 CENTERFIRE aspects, C-F block firing pin setup and rifling twists aside) an exact, copy of the 1860 Model Spencer.

Armisport/Chiappa parts are a mixture of changes, some never used in originals, and so on. 

Fletcher-Bidwell carbine #28, with its correct receiver dimensions and the correct BLADE extractor, is out because of its oddly profiled forend and miss-shaped front sight base profile. 

The Fletcher-Bidwell PICTURED in “Spencer Sporter” Thread SHOWS the LEVER IS (oddly) LARGER with approximately DOUBLE the clearance between it and the trigger compared to an ORIGINAL and a Sporter.

IMPORTANT to N-SSA skirmishers is the CAS/SSS Thread of Jan 22, 2006, “Why Not An 1860 Model?”:
In this THREAD is a Post by “Bobm” who indicated participation IN the N-SSA “approval” of the Armisport Spencer CARBINE that displayed some 1865 Model characteristics.  Bobm said the justification for the 1865 Model  acceptance was that it was a MODIFICATION of the Civil War ISSUE Model 1860.  I was told by SAC that even though the current version of the Armisport has a WIDE cartridge feed guide NOT found on either of Models 1860 or 1865, “it is close enough”. 

Some BACKGROUND about the TRUE COPIES issue:

Experts that FITTED MODERN CENTER-FIRE RIMMED cases to Spencer’s indicated the rims on 44’s and 45’s are NOT AS WIDE BEYOND THE CASE BODY as 56-50’s, and this narrowness creates feeding, extraction and THIN chamber walls opposite the blade extractor.  Functionality and SAFETY trump historical correctness.

The issue of repro’s NOT BEING FULL-SIZED EXTERNAL copies of the 1860 Model: 

The subject of which is TRULY FULL SIZED has surfaced important contradictions shared by people with “first-person” involvement.  The challenge has been to RECONCILE them.  So far, there are First-hand assertions EITHER way on the HOWELL RECEIVER SIZE.  The paperwork related to its SAC measurements, if any, and Production Approval are missing.   

I was once persuaded that each HAD to be “full-sized” externally to have a 56-50 barrel fit INTO the receiver and cycle cartridges.  Not so, per discussions with gunsmiths that do Spencer rebarreling, etc. on BOTH 1860’s and 1865’s.  A full-scale 56-50 barrel WILL ALSO fit into DOCUMENTED, ORIGINAL, SLIGHTLY undersized 1865 receivers with SLIGHTLY thinner, TAPERED lighter sidewalls.  Relative VISUAL SIZE and perspective are complicated.  With the WIDTH of a normal 1860 RECEIVER being nominally 1.23” just behind the barrel and 2.100” high at the same point, the receiver could be a 32nd of an inch thinner on each side, 1/16” overall, and the barrel would still “fit” either an 1860 or 1865 receiver.

What IS “undersized”?  There are NO receiver dimensions in Marcot for 1860/1865 receivers.   
Other CAS/SSS and N-SSA members have posted/provided measurements for original 1860’s and 1865’s.
Snakeeater shared THICKNESS dimensions from two of his ORIGINAL receivers.  His MILITARY 1860 RIFLE #32638 receiver is 1.255” wide at top and SPORTING rifle is 1.155”.  He said .100” is SIGNIFICANT.     

Herbert SSS posted that ’65’s and possibly later model receivers were slightly thinner and LIGHTER.

There is at least ONE documented receiver that is .155” thinner.  This .155” is slightly MORE THAN 1/8” or a VISIBLE 1/16” a side on a 56-50 MILITARY RIFLE. 

ALL the Romano’s and Fletcher-Bidwells are CLEARLY full-scale copies.
The Armisports can be EITHER at or barely UNDER full-scale, so they ARE OK as FAR as receivers are concerned, BUT the RIFLE barrels are reported to have different muzzle diameters. 

After reading my text, Herbert, the SSS resident Spencer expert, offered the following correction:

I spotted a couple of mistakes in post attributed to me on twist rates in Spencers (1) twist rate in Belgium Spencer is 1 in 28 (this is my most accurate 56-50 Spencer) inch not 1 in 24 (2) when I recommend the 1 in 24 twist rate as being very accurate this is only for the 56-46 Spencer cartridge of the sporting rifle (this is the most accurate of all the Spencers) it is too fast for
56-50_56-56 in my opinion.  Herbert

Una mano lava l'altra
Moderating SSS is a "labor of love"
Viet Vet  '68-69
3/12 - 4th Inf Div
Spencer Shooting Society Moderator
Spencer Shooting Society (SSS) #4;
BOSS #62
Fur Trade Era - Mountain Man
Traditional Archery

Offline El Supremo

  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 460
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Kevin Tinny - Part 5: Armi-Sport/Chiappa
« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2020, 05:13:34 PM »

Within the Armisport info is my incorrect comment about a Post of Herbert's regarding best twist rate.  Sorry for the typo. 

Herbert has PM'd the following helpful info:

I spotted a couple of mistakes in post attributed to me on twist rates in Spencers (1) twist rate in Belgium Spencer is 1 in 28 (this is my most accurate 56-50 Spencer) inch not 1 in 24 (2) when I recommend the 1 in 24 twist rate as being very accurate this is only for the 56-46 Spencer cartridge of the sporting rifle (this is the most accurate of all the Spencers) it is too fast for
56-50_56-56 in my opinion

Many thanks, Herbert.
El Supremo/Kevin Tinny
Pay attention to that soft voice in your head.

Offline Dobeman2000

  • Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Kevin Tinny - Part 5: Armi-Sport/Chiappa
« Reply #2 on: December 19, 2020, 10:18:25 AM »
I am brand new here, but have used these forums for a number of years.  I am looking to get a Spencer reproduction model chambered either in .45 Colt or 56-50.  I have all my reloading supplies for .45 Colt and supplies are easier to get, but more difficult to find a model in .45 Colt.  I am only interested in the 30 inch barrel model for either.  Basically, I can find the 56-50 for about $400 less than the .45 Colt, but would need to buy all the reloading supplies.  I am also curious about using Hornady FTX bullets with the .45 Colt model and if they would have some major difficulty cycling the action.  Of course there is also the difficulty of finding load info for modern bullets in these reproduction rifles.  I use Wolfe's load data for almost everything but all they have there is info for lead cast bullets.  I am interested in deer hunting with this rifle (I like the challenge of using early model rifles and muzzleloaders) so I would like to maximize hunting loads and mess around with reduced loads.  Any info you guys here can provide would be great.  Thank you.

Offline El Supremo

  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 460
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Kevin Tinny - Part 5: Armi-Sport/Chiappa
« Reply #3 on: December 20, 2020, 08:16:09 AM »
Nice to have you here, Dobeman:

Apart from your shooting credentials and round question, please allow me to share another important thing:

Please be sure that you test cycle any reproduction Spencer with dummy rounds BEFORE you accept it. 
Please do not shortcut this step. 

All the best and very respectfully,
El Supremo/Kevin Tinny
Pay attention to that soft voice in your head.


SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk

© 1995 - 2020