In reality, the looks of the CVA's stock is due to its ergonmic design, not necessarily a copy of the TC, because it does fit a human body well, as Aaron said, try it, you'll like it!!
But looking a bit deeper, beauty is only skin deep ya know
, the frame and underlug is very close to that of a Handi, so it's a compliment to the H&R engineers really, they've clone it and improved upon it, something H&R could take a few ques on, IMHO.
The latch design is almost identical as is the latch shelf, but with an improvement with a pocket for the latch spring, the trigger design is the same, but made of metal which appears to be the same cast material that TC uses on the Encore, and the trigger spring and latch spring are bigger, but in the same layout within the metal trigger guard that isn't an exact match of the H&R, but looks like the same person designed it, but with improvements.
The barrel release handle is a cross of H&R/TC, in the TC position, but the internal design very similar to the H&R.
The hammer is heavier as is the hammer spring which anchors just like the H&R, although the H&R hammer spring can be set against the frame lip where the OE doesn't have the lip which makes installing the trigger guard a little harder cuz you have to compress the hammer spring at the same time, not just the latch spring.
The underlug is a cross of the Encore and H&R, the latch shelf is H&R, the extractor is TC, as is the hinge pin, a removable pin that is bigger than the H&R, but smaller than the Encore, and if the material the underlug and pin are made of is better than the Encore, is doesn't need to be bigger.
The forend hanger stud is welded on with a nice bead or each side, not tack wellded like the H&R stud.
The firing pin design is similar to the Encore and is removable by just removing one screw and is parallel to the bore, not angled like the H&R, another move for the good, IMO.
As far as voiding the warranty, doing a trigger job without damaging any parts shouldn't be an issue, specially if say there's a defect in the barrel, CVA would be violating the Magnuson-Moss Warranty act if they denied a claim as the two issues are not related. That's akin to installing headers on your truck and a vehicle warranty claim being denied for repair of a defective radio because the aftermarket header was installed!!
Now if a person broke/damaged a part while doing a trigger job, that wouldn't be covered under warranty and I know there are klutzs out there that may not be up to the task, I made a trigger template for one member who has never used it, but I'm sure he just knows he's not up to the task, something each of us has to evaluate before doing a trigger job.
And if a rifle needs to go in for warranty work and a home trigger job was done, I would expect that CVA would return the trigger to their minimum or standard pull weight, just as H&R and TC does.
Tim
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson-Moss_Warranty_Act
