Chiappa Lever Action Carbines

B

barnbwt

New member
Hello everybody, I struck out on a question at THR, so I'll try picking the brains of the fine folks over here. (Nice forum, BTW, you've even got a manually-operated-rifles section :))

I'm interested in a couple of the lever guns made by the Italian company Chiappa, but they seem to have very little (and recent) market penetration in the US, so hardly anyone's heard of them or experienced their leverguns first hand. Most comments I found consisted of RFID tin-foolery(tom-foilery?), bashing/praise for their 22LR 1911's, and bashing/praise for the Rhino six-shooter, regardless of whether those guns were even being discussed (they're not :p). I'm willing to give a new-to-the-US company like Chiappa the benefit of the doubt if I can find even a short positive rep for their products (especially since their offerings are pretty unique and innovative).

I did find a couple more-helpful opinions; there is widespread praise for the lever-actions Chiappa makes under the Puma label (used to build for Cimarron as well, I believe), and several folks had good things to say about the Mare's Leg thing they make. But others said the 1886's, 1876's, and some other models had stiff actions that required some minor work to get running well. There were good and bad things said about their Sharps repros. Everyone agreed that Chiappa's longarms are gorgeous and faithful reproductions of the originals :cool:

I am interested in their rubberized-walnut/matte-nickle 1886 Kodiak Trapper in 45-70, and their 1892 Alaskan Scout in .357mag (if you're gonna copy a 120 year-old design, why not improve the materials?) I'm not confident that the reviews I've read so far are representative of this particular gun's quality or function, and even if so, they are pretty inconclusive:confused:

1886 Kodiak/Trapper 45-70:
http://www.chiappafirearms.com/product/2083

1892 Alaskan Scout .357:
http://www.chiappafirearms.com/product/2451

If you have seen (in person), handled, or bought one of these handsome guns, please tell about your experience.

It'll probably be a while before I can save up the requisite 1200$ for the rifle, but if it's quality is top-notch (or 3X better than a Marlington), and half as elements-proof as Chiappa claims, it's a bargain.

Thanks for the input, everyone, I really appreciate it!

TCB
 
Looks alright. I am not sure about the rubber covered wood stocks. I have to wonder what would happen if the rubber gets breeched due to a cut, tear, etc. and then gets wet. Water soaking in will likely have a harder time getting out than it did when it entered, and so the wood remains wet for an extended period of time...which isn't good.

I also have to wonder about how well the rubber is UV, temperature, and chemical resistent. I have a feeling that the rubber is going to deteriorate over time. It may take 20 years, but that isn't very long as compared to the longevity of the metal parts or wood stocks. So when it starts to deteriorate, it will go through varous changes in elasticity, permiability, and feel. At some point, the rubber may even start to get sticky to the touch.

At that point, the owner would be looking at having to replace the stocks or getting the stock refinished.

Maybe that have some really good rubber that won't deteriorate, but I don't think I have ever seen any.
 
Hopefully the stock has some form of silicone rubber painted on it. That stuff is pretty inert, as far as polymers go, but yeah, an eventual refinish might be needed to keep it looking pretty, at least if I take it out on trails a lot. But that's true of most finishes and materials. I suppose the rubber could be stripped to reveal the walnut unless the wood is somehow impregnated with the stuff, which would make it nearly immune to moisture.

Definitely nicer than a tupperware stock, though, I must say...

TCB
 
No, most finishes won't trap moisture underneath them. A typical wood finish can be maintained with minor touchups or even treatment with oil. That certainly would not be an option with a rubber coating.

Nicer than tupperware? I dunno. Polymer stocks don't have the same deterioration issues.
 
Yeah, good point on the repairability, 00Spy. I figure the wrapped wood is nicer to the touch than the hollow hard plastic clamshell on my Rem700, though. Granted, that thing will last millennia.

I'm also interested (moreso) in the chrome/nickle/ruthenium-whatever plating they put on the action parts. If it really is more resistant to rust and abrasion, and if the action still cycles smoothly without wearing it off instantly.

TCB

On further review,the price doesn't seem as relatively high as I'd thought. Seems many of the lever guns in rifle calibers go for upwards of 1000$ these days(on GB at least), the Chiappa is around 1200$, so it has price parity with Winchester 1886s.

I'm still puzzled no one's even seen one of these in person yet:confused:
 
Last edited:
I'd rather have wood. I understand the water and getting it beat up with rugged use but I'd still rather have beat up wood than rubber or synthetic.
 
Chiappa firearms are in general fairly well made, we get a few into the shop every now and then. Not a lot of shooters have a desire for a lever rifle that will set you back more than the cost of 2 Rem 700s. Your concerns about the hard chrome are understandable, but hard chrome will probably outlast you. I would have concerns about the rubberized coating on the wood as well, but primarily from an aesthetics viewpoint. I can make regular wood totally impervious to moisture and not have the Firestone look to it.
 
If you have seen (in person), handled, or bought one of these handsome guns, please tell about your experience.
Click to expand...

I have seen the 1886 Kodiak in person. It's a nice rifle. No rebounding hammer, no tang safety. It appears to be made of stainless steel? and has a half octagon-half round barrel.
The front sight is a red fiber optic with Skinner peep rear sight. Very quick target acquisition. The peep aperature can be removed to make it a ghost ring.

The barrel looked to be about 18.5" and was a bit muzzle heavy. (That's a good thing) It had a nice squishy recoil pad.
The action was a bit stiff but fairly smooth. It would loosen up with use. Fit and finish was very good, no gaps between metal & wood, solid working action.

There was also a Marlin 1895G .45-70 with "MR" stamp on the rack. I had a look at it as well. The Marlin had a very rough action, so much that I had to cycle it from the hip to open it. Fit and finish of metal to wood was not as nice.
Until Remington fixes there scew ups I wouldn't consider a new Marlin. For now, forget it.

There was also a Chiappa 1886 .45-70 with octagon 26" on the rack. It was also nicely done. Case-hardened receiver, lever, and butt plate. Nice weight to it, felt like 9 lbs, muzzle heavy. Butt plate formed to my shoulder fine.
Action was about the same as the 1886 Kodiak. If you like it, go for it. I think the 1886 is much nicer looking than the Marlin 1895.

Both were in the same price range as the new Miroku Winchester 1886's.
 
Last edited:
Finally someone with first hand experience!!!

"I have seen the 1886 Kodiak in person"

Congratulations, my friend, you have seen something rarer than Bigfoot :D

How did the rubberized wood feel? I assume you didn't try to peel it off with your fingernail :eek:, but ya-know, how was it? How offensive was the logo on the left side?

I did manage to find a decent source of reviews for (other) Chiappa leverguns; CAS City forums, where a number of people have recounted their experience with various models. It seems their 1892 actions had some issues, at least in the past, with misfeeds and hitchy levers (both correctable). Some folks claimed the company has a checkered past, or something, and refused to consider the brand entirely (they didn't elaborate much though, seemed kinda like an elitist/purist/vendetta thing).

Everyone agrees they make very gorgeous firearms that are also very historically accurate (Kodiak and T-model notwithstanding.) They seemed to be ranked up with other fancy reproduction makers, but few are willing to try them due to "lack of reputation." How do we gun-folk think reputations get made:rolleyes:? Most reviews from people who actually owned or shot them mentioned the actions being tight, one guy said he had to polish the internals to get the gun the way he liked. That seems to jive with what you've said, ClearWater. Tight action, well-built, and beautiful, just like a quality O/U shotgun (or, you know...;))

It's funny you mentioned Miroku (a known quality maker) prices their guns similarly. Several other great companies like Pedersoli price in this range too (1200$). It seems lever guns have developed a wide price gap between "economy" guns and the "next step up" in quality/function, just like the O/U shotguns I mentioned. I guess with Marlington's fall from grace, there isn't much of a middle ground left :(. My Franchi O/U, at 700$, was between the cheaper Stoegers and the +1500$ Benellis and Berettas in price and quality. Benelli has since discontinued the Franchi line, so if you want a double-shotty nicer than a Stoeger coach gun, you have to shell out big time. Likewise, I guess I'll be out +1000$ if I want a nice 45-70...:( Is it worth it? Ya'll tell me...

I suppose I could buy used for less, but I'm a "new gun" guy. Besides, the modern trim on this gun really appeals to me, and the finishes seem like a potential improvement (especially the hard chromed stainless internals).

Thanks for the great feedback, I'll start rolling my pennies...

TCB
 
How did the rubberized wood feel? I assume you didn't try to peel it off with your fingernail , but ya-know, how was it? How offensive was the logo on the left side?
Click to expand...

The stock had a flat smooth finish, no texture. It had a good grip when held firmly and, should do well with even sweaty hands. The rubber finish felt durable and should hold up fine.
With most black stocks, (synthetic or rubber) any large scratches and dirt on it will be visible. I didn't pay much attention to the logo. It was black showing a grizzly paw print with "Chiappa" written below it.
You won't notice it when you bring it to the shoulder unless you want to focus on it instead of the sights..

I liked the oval lever on the 1886 instead of the Marlin 1895 with squared lever. To me it was more comfortable to operate to me.

Most reviews from people who actually owned or shot them mentioned the actions being tight, one guy said he had to polish the internals to get the gun the way he liked.
Click to expand...

It seems that the majority of new lever actions (not just Chiappa) have tight actions and, need to be worked several times to smoothen them up.
Even the Miroku Winchester's are like that. Unless it's an 1892 action which are very smooth straight out of the box.

I have not seen a Pendersoli 1886, but I know they are high quality. They have quite a following with the muzzleloaders and Sharps 1874's they make.
The Pendersoli 1874 Sharps have won several matches, when Shiloh and C. Sharps rifles are competing against it that cost at least twice as much.

I hear ya, O/U's are getting more and more expensive. Even ammunition + reloading supplies have gone up considerably within the last few years.

I know CZ Ringneck, Savage Gold wing, Yildiz O/U and SxS are reasonably priced.

Likewise, I guess I'll be out +1000$ if I want a nice 45-70... Is it worth it? Ya'll tell me...
Click to expand...

If $1000 is your budget then consider a used Marlin 1895 .45-70. I have seen a few for sale in nice shape, only a couple of boxes fired. Some people just can't handle the recoil or loose interest.
Make sure it has the "JM" stamp (made by Marlin) and made 2009 or prior. They sell for more than half the price of a new 1886 Winchester/Chiappa. Then you would have money left over for dies, cases, powder, cast bullets, etc...
 
I've got one of their '92 actions in .44 Magnum. 20" round barrel, saddle ring, nice finish to wood and steel. I've put 150 rounds of factory through it without a hitch. Probably more accurate than I am, (like most of my rifles.)
Very pleased with it. The action is tight, but smoothing with use.
 
First, Chiappa isn't new to the US - just the name is new.

Chiappa was formerly Armi San Marco [EDIT: ArmiSport (senioritis - thanks, Hawg Haggen)], a somewhat less-than-good maker of blackpowder & early Colt & Winchester clones.

Their initial Model 92 production has several problems, which a prominent US levergunsmith advised them on/through, somewhat improving their product.

The Chiappa has always been about bling (fancy finishes), but one pays for that - approx twice the price of a comparable Model 92 from Rossi.

There's been good reports about their 1886 & Model 71 clones so far - but I have no personal experience with either.

.
 
Last edited:
[Chiappa's] initial Model 92 production has several problems, which a prominent US levergunsmith advised them on/through, somewhat improving their product.
Click to expand...
Their `92Winchester/.357 that I picked up several months ago has been flawless through ~500 rounds of
both commercial and high-performance heavy-cast handloads. (It likes gas-checked in that regime.)

Very smooth action. I admit to doing a trigger job, and adding a Marble tang sight (no gun mod req'd)

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5093760&postcount=11
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5089628&postcount=10
 
Chiappa was formerly Armi San Marco, a somewhat less-than-good maker of blackpowder & early Colt & Winchester clones.
Click to expand...

Umm not exactly. Chiappa was ArmiSport. Chiappa did reverse engineer the ASM 92 but they were not ASM. Chiappa's 92's are better guns than ASM's were.
 
It's funny, there was some confusion about the origins of Chiappa on the other forums, too. I think it comes from them contracting for other makers under various names (Puma, Armisport), and now that they are trying to breaking out on their own, people mistakenly confuse them with other products/companies (Chapparal, Armi-whatever) they may or may not have had anything to do with. The legit "bad rep" I have heard is with their older .22LR 1911 clones, which had less than steller alloys. I have a feeling their 45-70 is built to different standards than a rimfire pistol, so I think those complaints aren't particularly applicable to their lever guns.

BTW, the logo of the Rhino also has a case of mistaken identity; apparently a strip club has a very similar emblem... (oh, and the Russians made a bottom firing revolver named "rhino" in Russian...)

Perhaps Chiappa needs to undertake a PR/brand information campaign in the US to correct, or at least, clarify, their reputation?

TCB
 
barnbwt said:
It's funny, there was some confusion about the origins of Chiappa on the other forums, too. I think it comes from them contracting for other makers under various names (Puma, Armisport), and now that they are trying to breaking out on their own, people mistakenly confuse them with other products/companies
Click to expand...

Chiappa is a maker (manufacturer); "Puma is not - "Puma" is a trademark protected name, long owned by US importer Legacy Sports International (LSI), and although once assigned contractually to Rossi S.A., was re-assigned to Chiappa when the Rossi contract expired, where Chiappa has used it on Model 92's & 86's (so far).

AFAIK, Chiappa doesn't contract for other makers (manufacturers) - why would they ?

Most makers contract out maunfacture to other firms that have lower manufacturing costs, and I don't believe that's the case here, as with some of the larger US companies having guns branded as theirs, but made overseas.

.
 
I don't own a Chiappa 92 but I have heard good things about them. I do own a P53 Enfield made under the ArmiSport brand about 30 years ago that's top shelf as far as workmanship and function are concerned. The rear sight doesn't look original but it's close and there's a few other cosmetic differences that aren't as noticeable. Accuracy is top notch.
 
Chiappa is a maker (manufacturer); "Puma is not - "Puma" is a trademark protected name, long owned by US importer Legacy Sports International (LSI), and although once assigned contractually to Rossi S.A., was re-assigned to Chiappa when the Rossi contract expired, where Chiappa has used it on Model 92's & 86's (so far).
Click to expand...

Aw, man, I even tried to do my due diligence in describing Chiappa's past work and still screwed it up! :o My point about their "dubious rep" being mostly the result of their enigmatic (as opposed to incompetent) business history remains valid, though :D Maybe I should be more wary of a company who's associations I can't even understand? ;)

TCB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top