Nov 2015 issue of The American Rifleman- Rick Hacker's semi-informative rehashing of many other fine write-ups on the beloved Elsies-has a few Fubars-page 83 top left graphs- following the ejectors introduced in 1895 on the A-3 ejector grade Smith, he writes that in 1904 the non-selective one trigger was introduced- not right there, Rickie--it was a selective single trigger- If I have my Houchins down pat- the 1930's with the skeet guns was the first series of non-selective single triggers, firing the right barrel first, then the left, at the command of the shooter- He also failed to mention the revised ejectors with the Lewis Patent, of May 1905, a designed unchanged for the next 45 odd years in production. And under the aegis of Gifford Simmons, the raised ventilated rib came into being about the same time the LONGRANGE model was introduced. All great developments for the best sidelock side-by-side shotgun ever built in America--

I read this with some disbelief as well. Why in this day and age these "gun writers" with the resources available don't check their facts before publication is a mystery to me.
Jim

Well...why should gun writers be any different than writers in general? Just go to any news website - CNN, MSN, Yahoo, etc. and you'll see quickly that all the old standards of journalism, grammar, and sentence structure have gone down the tube.

Did he happen to mention what year they patented the cracks in the stock behind the lockplates?
I see so many of them that way, I figure it was a trade secret of some sort...


Best,
Ted

yes ted that was 1901 didn't want anyone else to be able to advertise full time stock repair dept.

The Difference:
The "general public" is for all practical purposes dumber then a box of rocks and wouldn't have any idea when a writer or a reporter was in error in the general news media. Just Watch Watters World on O'Reilly some time and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.
Most gun enthusiasts are fairly knowledgeable about the subject and readily pick up the type of errors being discussed in this thread.
Jim

Some years back I was reading an article by a well known gun Writer on the virtues of the 28 gauge. He was promoting its magical powers on the fact it shot a Square Load. He defined te Sq load as being the same weight of shot as the round ball for the gauge. He then rightly stated that you could obtain this by dividing 16 by the gauge number. In the case of the 28 this gives .57. Therefore he said the 3/4oz load in the 28 was a perfect Sq Load. Now even this ol dumb TN Hillbilly knows .57 & .75 Ain't the same, Ain't even close.

Did you see the 410 Parker with vent rib pictured in the Smith article? Bobby

Yes I did- didn't realize it was a "midget gauge shotty-gun" but the boxlock and carriage bolt himgr pin were a dead give-away that it weren't no Elsie--

AR just isn't a shotgun magazine. Also, their writers aren't shotgun people. The last shotgun guy on staff was my shooting buddy Bob Hunnicutt. His title was Senior Technical Editor. He shot A Class International Skeet with an ancient Krieghoff Model 32 and knew something about a shotgun.

The problem with articles like this one is that people accept the "facts" within it and will quote it for years. Too many "facts" are out there already and there is no excuse for so many errors. A quick review of the article by one of a dozen real experts would have corrected just about all the errors in it and taken only an hour with emails. Lazy to not do it right and the nra needs to print corrections.

I'm continually astonished that most screen media producers aren't aware that their audience is "a nation of firearms aficionados"!* My favorite is when a TV show or movie switches the hero's handgun between frames. Sometimes from an automatic to revolver or vice-versa....

I guess that's what the channel changer is for?

*(PC for gun nuts)

Yesirre troops- one of the biggest gun writer mistakes was claiming that the great Winchester Model 1912 (from 1912 to aprox 1919) was the "predecessor" to the Model 12, much in the same manner as the fact that the Winchester M54 was, indeed, the predecessor to the great M70 CF rifle. Another fubar is F*S shotgun writer Phil Bourjaily- best duck guns article- claiming that Thomas Crossley Johnson "revised and re-vamped the Browning M1893 and M1897 into the hammerless Model 12- BS- Johnson started from scratch on that "Perfect Repeater", the only thing he "borrowed from Johm Moses Browning's design was the 90% interrupted thread barrel/receiver take-down design-BS is out there, and not just from the politicos--

I would like to hear from this AR technical writer who made so many L.C.Smith mistakes as well as publishing a picture of a .410 Parker and representing it as a Smith. The biggest snafu is that the AR does not publish individual email addresses for authors. Even the local Commie Rag publishes email addresses.

Well, if they had a patent on it, they must have figured some way around the Remington patent of 1894 for cracking stocks.

Three of my Four 12 gauge L.C. Smiths were made prior to 1912-A OOE, 1906, a Pigeon with AE, and a Grade 2E-all with double triggers- all have been well used but well cared for, before they came into my custody- None have any cracks anywhere in the buttstock- the Pigeon has a straight hand grip- two of the three, as having ejectors and splinter forearms, have a slight crack at the rear of the forearm, the small set screw can sometimes cause a surface crack, more tension on the forearm anvil with an ejector gun than with the same gun with extractors, IMO- The 4th 12 gauge was purchased at the Sagola SC shoot in June 2010, Father's Day week-end- My Parker 12 GHE went "South" with the internal cocking slide- so I bought this Ideal FWE from a gun dealer- it is the only FW frame Smith I own at present-28" choked Imp. Cyl. and Mod- solid raised rib, first offered in 1939- and DT-It has replaced the Parker GHE as my numero uno side-by-side SC and also pheasant gun-No cracks anywhere either- I think and pouring Hoppe's oil down the muzzles, and standing the shotgun muzzles upward in the gun safe, the oil permeating into the stock head, is one possible cause of cracks-the other is using too heavy loads in a sidelock- if you want to shoot the big bang loads, get an Ithaca NID, a Model 21 or a A.H. Fox HE--not a Smith--

While the Smith's may crack behind the locks, every Parker or Fox or British boxlock I've worked on was split inside. They just hide it better.

Mark11 must not work on many english boxlock or parker guns. usually over oiled if there is a problem.

I've seen many Parkers with the bolt through the head of the stock. Many. Many LCs with the crack behind the lockplates. Many, many.
In fairness, most are very old guns, most have been used hard, and received sqaut for care.
That said, I will happily leave the "American classics" to them that wants 'em.
Enjoy.

Best,
Ted

Nick Makinson, http://nickmakinson.com, told me years ago that the reason so many Smiths are cracked at the same place is that they are true sidelocks, and that all sidekicks are prone to this very same cracking if the hand pin, I think is what he called it, is allowed to get slackness. He was trained in the English gun trade, did his apprenticeship with B. Wild and Son in B'ham, and worked in the trade until bringing his family to Canada in the early '80s. I respect his opinion as much as I would any gunmaker trained in the English gun trade. He told me flat out, "The L.C. Smith is no more prone to cracking the wood behind the lock plates than any other sidelock gun".

He holds the L. C. Smith in high regard ....................... much to the dismay of many Anglophiles here.

SRH

There are typewriter beaters and then there are credible scribes. Never have been many of the latter. Asking for unbiased outdoor writing or gun evaluation(s) is asking a lot; its like asking a dog guy about another breed.

Accepting that, it is not unreasonable to ask that what writers state as fact is accurate. Those who are not fall under the first heading. Retractions and corrections in small print in a subsequent edition does little to redeem sloppy work.

That is why work by authors such as Gough Thomas remain respected. I would not at all be surprised to learn that he had a final proof read & edit right before publication of his books.

There are others who have or had clear bias for a particular make of gun, gauge &/or breed of dog and who are gifted in sharing their passion(s), opinions and misadventure in a manner that it becomes literature. Some great outdoor literature is fiction, e.g., Mark Twain's works.

Poor reporting, ineptitude in researching, editing and misinformation stated as fact isn't fiction; it is junk.

Please observe the images here
http://www.picturetrail.com/sfx/album/view/17090409

The cracks at the apex of the lock inlet almost always start at the head of the stock related to a design flaw; inadequate wood surface area.

Comparisons with boxlock and other sidelock stock head surfaces may be seen here, including a Purdey courtesy of C.J. Opacek
http://www.picturetrail.com/sfx/album/view/15127852

This flaw can be rectified, or cracks prevented, by glasbedding
http://www.picturetrail.com/sfx/album/view/20576154

I am using a 1906 OE 16g Smith as my primary recreational skeet gun with RST 3/4 oz. loads. It has no cracks, and I have not prophylactically glasbedded the head of the stock. I did glasbed my 1908 12g pheasant gun however.

There are two LC Smiths. The regular frame stock is stronger than the featherweight. Back in the day they where made the ammo that was sold didn't recoil as sharply as todays shells. The feather weight stock is basically just four strips of wood up at the head with hardly nothing in between holding it together. Add 70 years,some oil, and modern trap loads or heavy hunting loads and the featherweight is notorious for cracking. There is no flat surface to transfer recoil from steel to wood. I'll bet Hunter Arms pushed the feather weight because it was cheaper to produce. When Marlin brought it back in the late 60's they advertised that the stock was glass bedded. That certainly helps but the design isn't that great.It may not be so bad in the smaller gauges but even a light 20g lets you know when it goes off.

Ah yes, the old prophylactic trick- like in the movie "The Big Red 1", on of Lee Marvin's better roles- as the old wise Sarge--showing his troops how to cover the muzzle of their M-1 Garands with one of those "pros" to hopefully prevent salt water from "rusting the bore"--never yet until now have I thought of using a Trojan on my Parker Trojan, perhaps I have missed something, being a good Irish Catholic lad..

1. Turn-of-the-century shells were not "low recoil"

Jan. 2 1897
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/SportingLife/1897/VOL_28_NO_15/SL2815017.pdf
Charles Grimm defeats Doc Carver in Chicago for the “Cast Iron Metal”
Grimm used a 12-bore L.C. Smith gun, 7 3/4 pounds, 3 3/4 drams Schultze, 1 1/4 ounce No. 7 shot, in U.M.C. Trap shell.
Carver used a 12-bore Cashmore gun, 8 pounds weight, 4 drams of Carver powder, 1 1/4 No. 7 shot, in U.M.C. Trap shell.

2. For comparison

Pre-1913 Regular frame



Right -1942 12g FW frame Field has thicker vertical head strips; averaging .110 thickness.
Left - 1921 16g FW frame thickness averages .085.



1945 16g FW with more wood



After the sale of Hunter Arms in 1945, Marlin apparently felt the need to address the stock defect by advertising a changes in design for the "L.C. Smith Improved Field Grade" - "L.C. Smith stocks have been re-designed for still greater strength, shaped to hold the frame solidly, with special attention to tight, sure mechanical action. All stocks of selected, seasoned walnut."

wood shrinks gets over oiled screws tightened over and over and the wood splits.

Drew,
That picture of the 1921 FW wood tells much about the problem of cracked stocks.

There isn't any wood there. How could it POSSIBLY hold up?

Best,
Ted

The basic problem with cracks in the LC Smith stocks id the design of the action. The rotary bolt, the top lever spindle, the safety and the cocking cams all require removal of a lot of wood. Nearly always, the width of the vertical channel for the spindle is larger than necessary, which leaves even less wood. Based on my observations, hammerguns are much less likely to have cracks because they need less wood removed, and have shorter tangs. The decreasing availability of quality stock wood over the years of production probably played a part also. Gluing cracks and glass betting the action and locks will cure almost all of the problems.

[quote=Tom Martin]The basic problem with cracks in the LC Smith stocks id the design of the action. The rotary bolt, the top lever spindle, the safety and the cocking cams all require removal of a lot of wood. Nearly always, the width of the vertical channel for the spindle is larger than necessary, which leaves even less wood. Based on my observations, hammerguns are much less likely to have cracks because they need less wood removed, and have shorter tangs. The decreasing availability of quality stock wood over the years of production probably played a part also. Gluing cracks and glass betting the action and locks will cure almost all of the problems. Glass betting- what's thepoint spread- maybe bedding might work better- Just acquired a 1927 era Field 12- 28" Armor steel, DT, Ext. the 80% bread and butter grade of Elsie- no cracks in either the buttstock anywhere- ditto the splinter forearm--some Elsies have cracks, some don't-go figure!

Seems like I also saw a photo that was supposed to be a sidelock, but was obviously a boxlock in that article. The world is getting dumber by the minute!

The museum picture file has a .410 Parker with a label that says it is a Specialty Grade Smith. The author used that particular picture in his article.

I don't have access to an 1897 Union Metallic Cartridge Co. catalogue, but in both the 1896 and the 1899 the heaviest 12-gauge bulk smokeless powder load offered in the UMC TRAP shell (or any other UMC paper shell for that matter) was 3 1/4 drams pushing 1 1/4 ounce of shot.

Those were some mighty stout loads those old boys were leaning into!!

After the Turn of the Century, 3 1/2 dram loads became available from our North American ammunition manufacturers --



but I have found some of the old gun writers decrying them and stating the 3 1/4 dram, 1 1/4 ounce was a better "balanced" load.

OoopsWhich museum-the Guggenheim or perhaps the Louvre? WTF..

Damnation- not my favorite, that being Yosemite Sam,but maybe his cousin -close enuf- good one Dewey, thanks? Now if we can only get the hallowed DGJ to correct Tommy Archer's fubar in a otherise most excellent article on a scarce Monogram Grade 12 bore Elsie- he "missed the boat" on the exact date the German U-boat sunk the Lusitania-no big deal, but for the price they get for the fine quarterly magazine, I expect 100% picture perfect proofreading- as the late Casey "Stinky" Stengel once so wisely said: "Hey, you can always go look it up somewheres!"--

The museum that is administrated by the author's employers, NRA. Not too hard to figure out. Or was Francis just playing with me?

Not a chance.

They did not patent it until 1913....that is why on most pre 13 guns the cracks mostly stay under the lockplates....

None of my pre 1913 Smiths, hammer or hammerless, have a hint of a crack behind the lockplates, or anywhere else.

And as old Martha Stewart would say: "And that's a good thing" I use RST 1125 fps loads in my Smith shotguns-well worth the extra cost and shipping, as repairing or re-stocking sidelock double ain't cheap!

I use Winchester AA skeet loads. 1150 fps