Hello folks. I bought one of these about a month ago so I thought I would give a review on it since it is kind of a mixed bag. I started out sending the owner Jerry an e-mail asking if he could send me a few pictures of what he had on his 1891 Cavalry Carbines as at this point in time, they were the only 1891's he had left. His reply was to request I call him which I did. On the call he explained that he had come into an number of arsenal refinished carbines that had matching numbers except for the bolts. None had their original stocks but he had an acquaintance who could make stocks create new copies of of the originals for him. He promised I would be satisfied. I was wanting one badly so I pulled the trigger.
When I got it I was like a kid at Christmas. First impression was I liked it. A day or two later, after some internet research, I started finding out some things. Yes, the rifle has the AG mark of an arsenal refinish. The bore is perfect and the finish that is on it is as described, about 95%+. But this finish was sprayed on. Not familiar with that type of finish. Not saying it is incorrect for an arsenal refinish, just haven't found anything either way. You can see that it was sprayed by the picture showing the side of the rear sight where the edge of the sight blocked the spray on the side of the rifle. I will say it is on there tight. No cleaning product I've used so far has removed any of it.
As Jerry said, the bolt is not marked. But I also found the rear sight serial number does not match either, so the claim of numbers matching (aside from the bolt) is incorrect. Don't know how important that is, but I can see in a refinishing of a great number of rifles some small parts getting mixed up. All the large parts, however, do match.
My biggest issue is the stock. Unfortunately I did not take any before pictures, just after. The stock is walnut. In general outline/silhouette it looks pretty good. Closer inspection reveals some flaws vs an original stock. First thing that caught my eye, and I do have pictures of that, is the upper hand guard. The one provided is not tapered to follow the lines of the lower stock. It is as if a walnut broom handle was modified into the upper hand guard and as such does not match the lines of the forestock. I called Jerry on that on. He said that was the way those rifles came when they were new. I disagreed with him and sent him a number of pictures from off the internet the showed how it was supposed to look. He told me that I'm the first one who has ever complained about this from all those he sold this re-stocked rifle to. I pointed out he should know what they looked like based upon all the 1891's with the factory stocks on the he had sold already. Now, let it be know, after this little back and forth banter Jerry did offer to take the rifle back and give me a refund, but I was already in the process of correcting the lines and other issues with the stock.
I had already ordered a NOS upper handguard from Springfield Sporters. $25 +$13 for shipping. In the mean time here are the other issues I found with the stock. The silhouette of the rear stock was wrong, On this on as provided, the drop off where the front of the cheek pad is at was a much more gradual drop then the original one. Also the top of that portion of the stock on this one was as wide at the front up to that drop off as it was at the butt of the stock, requiring correction to show the taper on top. The stock at the area from behind the bolt release one one side and at the bolt at the other side was flat, not rounded off. That too needed correction for more accurate lines. Underneath, the stock was too deep. As a result the inletting of the area where the trigger guard and magazine goes was 1/4" too deep into the stock requiring that amount of wood to be removed and blended up through the forestock to make it look correct rather then sunk into the wood by 1/4" . Those were the areas that you can work on to correct the outliine and fitment of parts mounted to the stock. There are 2 other areas you can't as they require putting wood back on the stock that was removed. One is the sling mount. It was too deeply inletted so the sling mount was just shy of 1/4" deep into the wood. Where it is at, removal of the wood to make it flush would make that part of the rifle too thin in appearance so I put a small washer underneath it to prevent it from going down to the bottom of the inletted area. The other area that would require the addition of wood is at the ejector cut out/loading area. The firearm has a long low "U" shaped area on the right side where the empty's eject from. On an original stock, the wood matches up perfectly all around this opening. On this one it is too wide exposing metal around the cutout. Not a thing you can do about that.
My new nos handguard also was finished, this stock was not. It had a slight fuzz to it, not that you could see, but you could feel. After correcting what I could I sanded it all down with 600 grit paper then put 2 coats of BLO on it. That ended up matching the finish on the NOS handguard.
At this point overall I'm pleased with it and it looks pretty good. Would I do it again? Most likely no as I don't see it likely that I'd get my initial investment back, but hey, now I can go out and shoot it. Once I do, I'll add another review of it.
When I got it I was like a kid at Christmas. First impression was I liked it. A day or two later, after some internet research, I started finding out some things. Yes, the rifle has the AG mark of an arsenal refinish. The bore is perfect and the finish that is on it is as described, about 95%+. But this finish was sprayed on. Not familiar with that type of finish. Not saying it is incorrect for an arsenal refinish, just haven't found anything either way. You can see that it was sprayed by the picture showing the side of the rear sight where the edge of the sight blocked the spray on the side of the rifle. I will say it is on there tight. No cleaning product I've used so far has removed any of it.
As Jerry said, the bolt is not marked. But I also found the rear sight serial number does not match either, so the claim of numbers matching (aside from the bolt) is incorrect. Don't know how important that is, but I can see in a refinishing of a great number of rifles some small parts getting mixed up. All the large parts, however, do match.
My biggest issue is the stock. Unfortunately I did not take any before pictures, just after. The stock is walnut. In general outline/silhouette it looks pretty good. Closer inspection reveals some flaws vs an original stock. First thing that caught my eye, and I do have pictures of that, is the upper hand guard. The one provided is not tapered to follow the lines of the lower stock. It is as if a walnut broom handle was modified into the upper hand guard and as such does not match the lines of the forestock. I called Jerry on that on. He said that was the way those rifles came when they were new. I disagreed with him and sent him a number of pictures from off the internet the showed how it was supposed to look. He told me that I'm the first one who has ever complained about this from all those he sold this re-stocked rifle to. I pointed out he should know what they looked like based upon all the 1891's with the factory stocks on the he had sold already. Now, let it be know, after this little back and forth banter Jerry did offer to take the rifle back and give me a refund, but I was already in the process of correcting the lines and other issues with the stock.
I had already ordered a NOS upper handguard from Springfield Sporters. $25 +$13 for shipping. In the mean time here are the other issues I found with the stock. The silhouette of the rear stock was wrong, On this on as provided, the drop off where the front of the cheek pad is at was a much more gradual drop then the original one. Also the top of that portion of the stock on this one was as wide at the front up to that drop off as it was at the butt of the stock, requiring correction to show the taper on top. The stock at the area from behind the bolt release one one side and at the bolt at the other side was flat, not rounded off. That too needed correction for more accurate lines. Underneath, the stock was too deep. As a result the inletting of the area where the trigger guard and magazine goes was 1/4" too deep into the stock requiring that amount of wood to be removed and blended up through the forestock to make it look correct rather then sunk into the wood by 1/4" . Those were the areas that you can work on to correct the outliine and fitment of parts mounted to the stock. There are 2 other areas you can't as they require putting wood back on the stock that was removed. One is the sling mount. It was too deeply inletted so the sling mount was just shy of 1/4" deep into the wood. Where it is at, removal of the wood to make it flush would make that part of the rifle too thin in appearance so I put a small washer underneath it to prevent it from going down to the bottom of the inletted area. The other area that would require the addition of wood is at the ejector cut out/loading area. The firearm has a long low "U" shaped area on the right side where the empty's eject from. On an original stock, the wood matches up perfectly all around this opening. On this one it is too wide exposing metal around the cutout. Not a thing you can do about that.
My new nos handguard also was finished, this stock was not. It had a slight fuzz to it, not that you could see, but you could feel. After correcting what I could I sanded it all down with 600 grit paper then put 2 coats of BLO on it. That ended up matching the finish on the NOS handguard.
At this point overall I'm pleased with it and it looks pretty good. Would I do it again? Most likely no as I don't see it likely that I'd get my initial investment back, but hey, now I can go out and shoot it. Once I do, I'll add another review of it.
