Your right, Renegades and Hawken's are not the only good ones. Knight is also a great company and I would buy another one.

BTW the Model A was a good car everything after that sucked.:party0005:

Ron

Muley Hunter

I am somewhat in the same boat as Ron, I previously have owned 4 different CVA and I really should say BPI products, because at one time I think the original CVA campany produced some darn nice side hammer guns. The side hammer, and 3 different inlines that I purchased were all after BPI took over. These rifles were purchased when I first started doing the ML thing and I was a broke college student. Wal-Mart provided me my first opportunities to get into ML's - the rifles were cheap! dirt cheap! as compared to White, TC, Remington, Ruger, Knight and others.

I should say they allowed me to shoot a ML and they were somewhat on the accurate side, in those days I really did not know what ML accuracy was. But, in realality those guns were junk as compared to any of the guns listed above - but they were cheap!

So I go along with Ron's assesment and would write the same thing... "No I don't own a CVA inline and like I said before I won't due to a poor first impression." I would go a step further and say I can not imagine that I would ever own a CVA even though they have come a long ways in their development - except most of their development has been to copy other successful ideals and then incorporate it into their current rifles.

Using foreign labor will always allow you to under sell most anything made in America, and the fact is more and more blue collar jobs are moving and will continue to move off shore as long as the cost of labor and manufacturing is less and the product can be sold to Americans at American prices... Shoot... Romney made millions doing this very thing.

Everybody can have their own opinion of a product. Obviously we can't all like the same thing. How boring would that be?

However, there's a huge difference between not liking a product, and calling it junk. A modern CVA inline is far from junk in any unbiased persons opinion.

I owned an Omega. I liked it at first, but it had some problems that annoyed me, and I sold it. I've said many times that I didn't like the gun. I would never call it junk though. That would be foolish, because too many know it's not. The same applies to CVA.

Good enough, but that side hammer, hunter bolt and two fire bolts were not good - really not good

I can't disagree. I never owned a CVA sidelock.

Jon seems like the only one who likes them. :D

I guess I am foolish because I won't buy the CVA junk. I am ok with that. The money I save from not buying new CVA junk will give me more money to go on hunts and kill trophy animals. That works for me. Ron

I think the ones Jon has are the older CVA side hammers - sides Jon like anything that gets him points with some company...

Cheap or shoddy material, that's the Wikipedia definition of junk and appears to be the way it is being used in regards to the rifles spoken of.
Another factor to consider is the major difference in philosophy of business's. Read Randy's article and the business aspect of CVA was clear . then compare that to the video.
Quite a difference in that as well as quality and other factors involved.

just finished shooting a cva hawken built in 1986, beautiful shooter! 80gr 3f pyrodex P, 370gr maxiball, cci #11 mag cap, took 3 shots with a wad and ended up with a 3" string at 50 yards. Removed the wad and took 3 more shots which went directly through a hole that was there from the other shots. Im lucky i slightly pulled one otherwise i would have felt that i missed completely. You could cover those 4 shots "3 actually" with a nickel.

you tend to get foolish on a lot of things lately :happy0157: