Thought I would ask the forum if anyone has or have handled a CSMC Inverness. Been thinking of adding one to the collection, I have. Been to CSMC and now regreat not taking a interest in the o/u.

Good luck. If you purchase one, make sure it's already built and you have a 3 day return guarantee. A search of problems with CSMC guns will yield many results. I know of 6 guns who were purchased by friends or family members. All but one have been back to CSMC for issues, and the one that hasn't hasn't been shot much. I will never deal with them ever again..... BTW, I just received my Jeffs outfitters case for my Inverness. It fits better than the joke of a case CSMC sent me for the gun they built. Sad when an aftermarket case fits better than the one from the factory...... If you get a good Inverness, they are incredible guns, it's too bad CSMC has no quality control however.

GT
Thank you for the insight. Very interesting. I have a RBL and no issues yet. I have only ran about 150 rounds through it. I'll keep researching

I know of two good friends that have them. One shoots it oftsn and enjoys it a lot. The other is selling his, for no specific negative reason. So, if youare interested in one second hand, let me know.

also know of 20 gauge inverness for sale...pm your contact info...

They were all 20g.

I have one for sale also. After buying an RBL ( which I love), I bought an Inverness. It's a neat gun, but never talked to me like the RBL. No more than 100 shots thru it. As new. No case. Price is about 60% of new.

The Inverness is a copy of the round body Rizzini... For the money, I'll take the Rizzini ANY DAY!

Adam

Not really, it's a copy of a bunch of Italian made O/U that are very good actions.. With that said, as much as I don't like CSMC, the Inverness is a sweet gun. I'll take an Inverness over the Rizzini any day.

Do you own one?

And you would be wrong, on both points. The Inverness is an exact, though inferior, copy of the Rizzini Round Body. The Rizzini is a much nicer, better finished, and better engraved gun.
JR

John is exactly right. Rizzini builds with the standard "guild" action used by many Italian makers and that is what CSMC copied on the Inverness (the their model 21 o/u, too). To be more specific, they modeled the Inverness after the round body Rizzini, which is a far superior gun in my opinion. Also, keep in mind that right before they started making the Inverness, CSMC was the sole importer for Rizzini into the United States. They even imported a round body model named... You guessed it, the "Inverness"! When CSMC starting making their own Inverness, Rizzini opened up Rizzini USA in Utah to handle the importing. Obviously, CSMC now had conflict of interest with their own round body gun to sell.

They are not the same. Rizzini's look like every other ugly Brescia built O/U out there, while the Inverness looks like a sleek Mckay Brown. Mechanically, they are very similar, but why should that surprise anyone? They are guns, and people have been copying good gun designs since gun design began. The Winchester M-70 is a copy of the German Mauser, yet we say the M-70 is as American as apple pie. Win Hester wasn't the only company to copy the design ejther... The Inverness name was owned by CSMC, not Rizzini. The name Inverness was slapped on a Rizzini gun and imported into the US. That's why there was confusion when CSMC began making their own Inverness, and why many people believed CSMC was using Rizzini actions, which they weren't.

You can lead a horse to water...
JR

My Inverness is a wonderful gun. Looks like a McKay Brown. Handles very well.

Will I have my research cut out for me, I need to put my eyes and hands on one before I pull the trigger.
Great insight from board members, one thing raising an eyebrow is the number of members selling or knowing of one fore sale that has me slowing down and doing my due diligence researching this firearm.

Wrong. So ridiculously WRONG. The B. Rizzini round body is built on a action designed by Ivan Tanfoglio (of Ferlib fame). The round body Rizzini does NOT use the standard "Brescia" action used by many Italian makers. And just for the record, while the CSMC and Rizzini round body guns do have a rounded body, they are in no way nor do they even resemble a DMB. Not even close. If you have the opportunity (I do) to view and handle the DMB and the Rizzini together, you'll notice all the differences immediately.
There is no design genius at CSMC (they don't have a Ivan Tanfoglio or John Browning on the payroll).... Everything CSMC makes is a copy of someone else's product. That's a fact and the CSMC Inverness falls directly in line with their other products.

I didn't say it was. I said they looked like every other Brescia gun out there, and they do. I also said "mechanically they are very similar, and why should that surprise anyone". They are not exact duplicates. The Inverness is a much nicer looking gun and doesn't scream Brescia built gun, like the Rizzini does. CSMC does what many gun manufactures do, take a tried and true design and tweak it, same thing Winchester did with their Model 70's. Kimber did the same thing with their M8400, and so did Dakota with their 76. What's wrong with that? The Inverness looks like a McKay Brown, the Rizzini looks like every other Italian built mid range O/U. They are not the same.

Haha. :-) Okay dude. You're wrong on so many levels it's not even worth debating with you. You're so adamant on making your personal opinions and unfounded assumptions the truth that it's a complete waste of time trying to talk sense and drop facts on you. I hope the original poster/question asker got some insight and answers to his query. If he/she didn't, just pm this fella Gt1900, he's got all the inside scoop and seems to be a treasure trove of info on everything Inverness.

I would like to know, #1, what Rizzini are we comparing the CSMC to? #2, what is the problem with the CSMC gun that makes it inferior to whatever Rizzini you are comparing it to? #3, can someone post some pictures of the Rizzini in question and the CSMC Inverness so we can make a decision on purchase. I have no opinion on this subject, except that I like my CSMC Inverness, but I don't know how the price compares to the Rizzini that we are comparing it with.

Rizzini: http://www.gunsinternational.com/guns-fo...un_id=100787485

Inverness: http://www.gunsinternational.com/guns-fo...un_id=100782295

$10,000 difference in price. "Parkerized" barrels on the Inverness is a nice touch...

My question here is, what kind of thinking is behind pricing that gun at $14.7K? Bigger question might be who would be stupid enough to even consider it?
JR

I ordered one on the initial offering. Sent in my own wood blank which came out very nice. I've been shooting B. Rizzini's for years. After comparing the Inverness to the Rizzini. I put the Inverness up for sale and haven't looked back.

Dollar for Dollar the Rizzini is a better buy for a better gun.

I did the opposite. Shouldered the Rizzini, hunted with the Guerini Elipse EVO, and went with the Inverness. Glad I did. While they are all very nice guns, the Rizzini and EVO look and feel like every other factory rifle you buy from Italy. The Inverness does not. But that's why we have choices.

[img:left][/img]

[img:left][/img]

One has to wonder, How many of these are "Snob" buys, and how many days any of these guns actually see in the field?

They aren't "Snob" buys. They are club guns by and large.
I seldom see anyone in the field toting a gun beyond 5K in value. Gun clubs are another matter.
It just depends on the circles you travel in.
On plantations, 10k isn't unusual. But it's not like they are shooting them every day for months on end either. Where some freckling decreases value by huge amounts because you put it in a damp case overnight and forgot.

It's all about what you like and what you want.
Be happy for the other guy's good fortune.

God Bless America!

If most casual shooters would spend more of their money on practicing and shells, and maybe some lessons from a pro in the beginning, and less of it on ridiculous priced guns, they would be much more effective at shooting flying. The men/women who are not pros, who shoot $15K (and up) guns, and are really good shots, can be counted on your fingers and toes. My mantra was always to shoot a shotgun until I truly believed it was a reason I was not shooting a higher score. Now that that gun is a Perazzi (used when I bought it years ago), I doubt I will ever be able to honestly make that claim again.

I watch men pull out H & H, Purdey, Boss and Woodward guns and go out and shoot a 45/100, and then do the same thing for years, and I wonder how they can feel good about it. I know we are all different but I see a lot of people at vintage S x S shoots like this, and I just cannot get my head around it. Improvement is not beyond the capabilities of anyone who wants it badly enough. I really wish someone could help me understand why looking good makes someone feel better about themselves than hitting what they shoot at. Is just hearing the gun go bang enough? I'm as far from an elitist as anyone you would ever meet, and I miss more than I'd like ........ but I never stop striving to get better.

I just guess I'd rather hit something with a BSS than miss with a Woodward, though I understand fully that the two are not totally incompatible.

SRH

Clapper Zapper,
Interesting point, on toting in the field, or at the club. Many years back and I do mean many, many years ago, When I was shooting every weekend at the Rod and Gun club, I saw a lot of very high dollar, K80, Perazzi, H&H,WR, Kmen, and so on. In the field, I noted, that the gun carried for scaled quail, and chucker were no slackers in terms of value, Browning Superposed, AYA, Merkels even the H&H and Purdy.
I am a firm believer, that no matter the value for me I'll tote it through the brush or across the field and use what it was intended for.

Kinda poked a nerve there I guess..When we had the B&B we had pretty much ALL double gun shooters as guests. One of our regulars whom I still shoot , often shot a Boss in the morning and a Model 97 Winchester in the afternoon. He didn't miss much with either one. Another regular had a pair of Arizabalagas (sp) and couldn't hit his ass with either hand. Lotsa high dollar guns, used by mostly men who knew how to shoot. It aint the arrow, its the Indian...I think that if I had the money, I would spend it on a gun that I could shoot well. Pretty much saying what Stan said...Don't think I could rationalize buying a "club gun"...

Rifle ????

SRH

ROTFLMAO Stan. I saw that too and was going to respond but got distracted. Funny, but quite telling also.
JR

I always thought it shameless that Galazan copied DMB's O/U advertising material when promoting his Inverness. He utilized the same fonts and even duplicated that pink/purple shade behind the action. I am sure David wrote him a friendly note when he opened that first SSM with the cribbed advert.

Has anyone used the CSMC Inverness for any type of high volume shooting? Sporting Clays or Driven Birds? How did the guns hold up?

If the OP is interested I know of some high grade Inverness guns for sale, both used and new.

Dennis

I ordered one from the initial offering and Lou picked out the wood. I could not be happier. With the 30" barrels I love the way it feels. It needed some adjustment and I returned it and in their usual fashion they returned it quickly repaired. It has not hiccuped since. I use it for sporting clays a few times a year and it is going to Georgia this winter for Quail. I still think it was a bargain. I don't understand the present pricing though.

Earlier I said Rizzini is a far superior gun... I should rephrase that statement... I believe its a far better value.

Adam

With comments, inferring Rizzine, and DMB, the question I pose is the Inverness an copy of the DMB?

No. It is not. Not even close. The CSMC is a copy of a Rizzini. Nobody is copying the DMB round action O/U that I know of.

With comments, inferring Rizzine, and DMB, the question I pose, is the Inverness an copy of the DMB?

Adam, please let me know which Rizzini you are referring to. Which Rizzini is better than the CSMC Inverness and in which ways.

I look at it the total opposite. The guy with a really nice gun that shoots 45/100 would do that with any gun and probably doesn't really care a lot about his scores but enjoys owning and more important shooting his high end gun. Everyone one would love to be a top shooter but some guys just don't have it in them and if they go out and shoot a 60/100. They are very happy. Just as happy as the guy who ran 100 straight when he normally shoot a 95. Any of the top shooters could shoot the scores they do with let say a Beretta or Browning instead of there Kreigoff or Kolar. They are good shooters and have shot there gun enough to be totally comfortable with it and practice a lot.

With that said my skeet gun is a Beretta 686. Even if I switched to a Kreigoff or Kolar I would still shoot my 94/100. But if I could afford a really nice K-80 I would own one just because I like them.

The guys that you mentioned that shoot Purdey's, H&H,Boss etc probably just like them and good for them for shooting them. What I find hard to understand is guys that own these guns and never shoot them. Instead just look at them.

I do know a few guys you are refering to that are horrible shots but brag or act like they are better than everyone because they have a Kreigoff. Same guys that drive a Range Rover when a Jeep Cherokee would be just as good for them.

I did not mean to infer, by any stretch, that the fine guns they shoot are in any way the cause or the reason for their poor shooting. What I cannot understand is a mindset where people can be happy missing. I do not accept that anyone who is coordinated enough to operate an automobile cannot better themselves from a 45/100 score. What I cannot understand is why they do not WANT to improve, or why they don't dedicate themselves to improving.

A shotgun was invented and designed to hit things, not to miss and just make a loud noise. Please understand I am not belittling these gentlemen. I simply cannot understand it ......... but then, there's a lot I don't understand. I once had a friend who was a Marine Major, and piloted F-4U Corsairs. Later, while stationed in Florida he would shoot at a rifle/pistol range regularly. He said that about once a month a guy would come out with a S & W .44 Magnum and a full box of cartridges. He would load it, fire it until empty into the berm, reload, and do the same thing over and over until the box of cartridges was empty. He asked him one day why he didn't shoot at a target or something. Said he wasn't interested in hitting anything, just hearing it shoot.

There's lot of room between 45/100 and "top shooter", Woody. I'm not a "top shooter" either, but I've come a long ways from the first time I shot sporting clays until today. Lessons, shells, questions, more shells, lots more shells. But mostly, just wanting to get better.

SRH

I don't have the means to consider Tony's wares, but I still learn a lot from most every topic here. To Stan's point, I have/had been mostly a mediocre shot but loving the sport, often comparing myself to the priest/Rev. in Spirit of St. Louis who couldn't fly worth a flip but sure loved taking lessons. Recently had the opportunity to purchase a used Lincoln thrower. 2650.00 with 150 ft. release cord. Could have found another of my lovely French Ideals for not much more than that. But I wanted to improve, and the machine has helped my recall and realize what my friends and shooting mentors have been trying to teach me all these years. So here's to shooting well, all guns great and small.

Stan, why do you shoot your Perazzi at Clays and shoot your Fox HE at ducks? It would seem your logic would tell you to be shooting ducks with your Perazzi as you'd be hitting more, thus killing more.

Its pride in ownership of a piece that represents the highest level of craftsmanship. A lot of automobiles are purchased at outrageous prices to be stored away and look at never to be driven. Same thing. Its yours and your money so do what you want with it.

You have the luxury of a location to put that thrower. Helps a lot with those kinds of choices about getting better or not. Not to say one can't without the property but all of us make certain choices in how we organize and prioritize our lives. Some put being a very good shot very high on the list, for others that specific skill is a little further down. That's all. To each their own. I never worry about others' choices....only mine.

"anyone who is coordinated enough to operate an automobile cannot better themselves from a 45/100 score."

If I had to guess, there are a lot of people out there whose driving is 45/100. Another guess is that they guy shooting 45/100 probably would like to improve his shooting more than the 45/100 driver would like to improve his road skills. Personally, I applaud the guy who loves shooting enough to come out week after week and bear his 45 cheerfully.

Stan, I understand to my satisfaction what you said: "I really wish someone could help me understand why looking good makes someone feel better about themselves than hitting what they shoot at."

"Looking good" could mean many things: appearing dressed properly for circumstances, in sodden blinds or dry uplands, with or without a dog, or to impress with money and masterworks: hey look, I am what I own. Absurd.

I'd accept a distinguished gun if it didn't draw attention to myself---most I've seen and owned, don't---because a solid majority of my colleagues know respect or looking good can't possibly come from what we own.

I don't know any gun snobs. I can't think of a member with an expressed exaggerated notion of his character or importance because he owns an elegant example of craftsmanship. We know it doesn't make a better shooter.

Does anyone actually hunt their guns, or is everyone sport shooters? I can't imagine owning a gun I wouldn't take into the field, and I have no idea if 45/100 is good or not. Hell, I'm not even sure what it means. Here's what a I do know, I hunt with some guys who can't hit squat on a range, but good luck out shooting them when it comes to wild birds. People get personal satisfaction from different things. Hitting 100/100 does nothing for me, but I'll brag all day about not losing birds because I hit them squarely. I occasionally hunt with my 870 because it's the gun my dad gave me as a kid, even thought I don't shoot it as well as my doubles. Why? Personal satisfaction. If I had the means to own a high dollar double, yet I didn't shoot it as well as other guns, I'd still hunt with it and not care if I didn't shoot it as well. If someone wants to shoot a $100k shotgun poorely, so what, as long as they enjoy doing what they're doing, who cares?

I hunt all my guns, I have nothing real fancy, a #1 AYA, 28 gauge, that has been through the grouse woods more time than I can count, it has a few dings and scrapes. But I enjoy the feel and workmanship.
I hunt with a gentleman that hunts grouse with a 20 gauge H&H Royal, and was with him when he fell and broke the stock. He said a couple of choice words headed back to the car and pulled his backup AYA 53E, in 20 gauge. I think I was more so sick about it more than he was.

Did I ever say I missed a lot with my HE? Where do you get the idea I don't shoot it well? I miss with it, as I do with the MX8, everybody misses. But, I am ever striving to improve. You missed the point I was trying to make, twice. It's not the gun, it's the desire and the determination to do better with the gun you have.

My Perazzi is set up for pre-mounted shooting ...... the HE is not. In case you've never shot ducks, pre mounting doesn't work very well.

SRH

Stan, I'm sure most of us know the more expensive, highly decorated, high quality guns don't make us better shots.

I can't speak for other people although I suspect many of us on this site feel this way. I like high quality guns and I like to use them when I can. And that is a different "like" than me liking being a good (read better) shot. Not always but often two completely different things.

You don't have to be a professional race car driver to want to drive a Ferrari.

James,

I'm afraid I have been misunderstood on this whole thing. I never meant to imply that owning high quality guns and good shooting are mutually exclusive. In fact, I said just the opposite in a previous post. I love high quality guns, and wish I could own some, but I can state one thing for certain ..... if I ever did own a H & H Royal, a Woodward, or the like, and could not shoot it well, it would go down the road. If a man wants a fine gun, great ..... so do I. But, for goodness sakes, get one that fits you and that you can shoot well.

Not directed at you, James, but it would also seem, by the replies, that I have stepped on some toes.

SRH

True. I would like to own a bespoke Purdey, too. But is it sensible to buy that full race Ferarri, dress up in a racing fire suit, and enter races for years, come in last every time, but never take driving lessons or practice between races? I'm just trying to understand that mindset. It is obvious there are some here who do understand it, or at least identify with it.

Just so y'all don't get the wrong opinion of me, I never pull for the winners, just because they are proven winners. I normally pull for the underdog .......... who WANTS to win very badly, but just hasn't achieved it yet. I have great admiration for the shooter who does not shoot well, but who wants to badly enough to work hard at it. None for the guy who bitches about how hard the course is set, or how fast the birds are flying, but who never makes the effort to really improve.

SRH

My wife bought me 8 laps at Atlanta Motor Speedway with the Richard Petty driving experience. I will never be good enough to drive NASCAR, but boy was it a rush. If I were able to drive NACAR, I'd come in last place every time just to enjoy the experience.... If I were able to handle and shoot a Purdey, I'd do it with a HUGE smile on my face just to know I was shooting a Purdey, even if I missed everything I shot at. You don't have to be good at something to enjoy it.

Glad you enjoyed that, Gt1900, I would have, too. You didn't go buy a race car and fire suit, I don't suppose. Neither would I.

SRH

If I had the money i would have.

I once shot Bob Matthews' Purdey at a S X S shoot. It was indeed magical in it's handling, and I broke every pair with it on that station ........... but I broke them all with my BSS, too.

My hat's off to anyone who can shoot their high dollar guns well. I've just not seen many that can. But then, there is probably a good reason. I only occasionally rub elbows with gents who can afford such guns. In my circle of clay shooting buddies there are Berettas, Valmets, a Kreighoff, a Ceasar Guerini and a Perazzi. Every one of those guns was purchased used except one. But, they all know what to do with them, if you know what I mean.

SRH

Boy! Has this topic veered off course!

It has indeed. I played a big part in that. My apologies to all.

SRH

As I said before, I love my bespoke Inverness. I have gone through the classes in International Skeet, NSSA skeet, and NSCA sporting over the last 40 some years. I have shot guns that worked for me, in all cases. I am through with the money birds and now I shoot Parkers and British side by sides, including an outrageous Purdey hammer pigeon gun. I have no apologies for any of my guns and shoot most of them as well as the others. When I first owned the Purdey, I was physically unable to shoot, so turned it over to my shooting buddies. I couldn't believe how far over their heads they were shooting this gun. My great friend, Stan, is right on the money. We should strive to shoot high scores, regardless of any impediments in guns or finances.

I seem to remember two fools arguing on the radio over their favorite sports teams. One actually challenged the other to a fight. I wondered at the time if either was able to get out of his chair and waddle to the car to go fight. All over teams that they don't play on, just watch. Spectators!