doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com #7.5 vs #8 Shot Performance in the Field

Before I knew better, I fired heavy, high dram equivalent 1 1/4 oz. loads in a few L.C. Smith guns including a Grade 2 that had reblued Damascus barrels that I initially thought were fluid steel. I got away with it, but realize now that a steady diet of such loads would likely eventually damage the wood, and the pounding of the bolting surfaces would accelerate wear. Sure, most wear comes from abrasive dirt and friction, but the mushroomed head of a hardened tool steel chisel confirms displacement of metal due to peening.

Another gunsmith who has a good reputation when it comes to L.C. Smith's (and Lefevers) is Buck Hamlin of Missouri. Buck used an old pitted Damascus barreled L.C. Smith in his own endurance tests similar to the famous Sherman Bell Damascus Barrel tests documented in Double Gun Journal. I don't have the exact loads and results handy, but recall that he opened the chambers to 3 1/2" and kept increasing powder charge and payloads until he was well over what would constitute normal proof loads. Before the barrels ruptured with what he called nuclear loads, he did bust the stock, and he did reach a point where the vaunted rotary bolt blew open. Eventually, the entire rib extension ripped loose and the breech was wired shut to complete the destruction. However he was far in excess of any reasonable 2 3/4" factory load at that point.

Everything mechanical has engineering design limits, including guns. An Indy car can go over 220 mph, but the engines are often rebuilt after 500 miles, or even less. So of course, Ted is right about using those heavy field loads in a gun more suited to them. An L.C. Smith stock that could easily withstand 35-40 ft./lbs. of recoil when it was new might not do so well now. Overall, the test of time tells us which guns are the most reliable or the most durable, especially in well used specimens. One only has to spend enough time at gun shops and gun shows to learn which guns have a better chance of remaining tight and on face, or which guns aren't as likely to end up with glued and screwed wood or pins or dowels through the stock cheeks. And there is a reason we don't see a multitude of guys clamoring to buy Crescents or Worthingtons, and why such a large percentage of them have been scrapped or parted out.

Keith;
I recall the Smith test that Buck did. It was reported on in the Lefever Arms Collectors Association newsletter some years back. He also did another one on a Lefever. As I recall he began with the heaviest load of Blue Dot listed in the loading manuals & went UP from there. My recollection on the Smith is that he stopped when the gun began blowing open at every shot. When testing the Lefever it stayed shut & he did go to the destruction point on it.

As I recall he was loading either 2 or 2� oz of shot & with those powder charges he was way above & beyond what an ordinary 1� oz load will stress a gun.

Back around 1970 I had a set of Boehler Steel barrels fitted to my FE Lefever 12ga. I have fired a fair amount of the 3 3/4-1� loads through it since then. It does have Italian "Nitro" proof marks on the steel set of barrels.

My hunting does not generally call for that heavy a load. I used those when I was doing a bit of Duck Hunting. "IF" I could have got the 3�- 1� load in anything larger than #7� I would have used them. I did end up reloading so I could use less velocity behind the heavier shot charge, but the gun handled the heavy Factory load just fine.

I am certainly not going to disagree about the durability of OLD WOOD. In fact my statement was the wood was what I would be concerned about. Even that old Junker H Lefever I mentioned does Not show any signs of metal Peening. As I mentioned with the ball joint hinge completely removed the gun will close tight with virtually no shake or movement from the bolted Doll's Head alone holding it shut. I of course have no idea what loads it had fired in the past. It has the barrels Lefever cataloged as "Best London Twist", though they were no doubt made in Belgium. I would pretty nearly though Bet the Farm they were not all PussyCat loads.

I fully agree everything has its design limits. Old JD Hydraulic cylinders for instance from the 2-cylinder era used pressures below 1K psi & had leather cup seals. Put them on a modern tractor with pressure in the 2K-3K range & they won't last long. 1� oz of shot was however a common load for the 12 gauge in the era the Smiths & Lefevers were built. Those old loads using 1� oz pushed by 28 grains of Infallible or Ballistite , 3� drams measure of Schultz or Dupont smokeless are not Light. These are all recommended loads straight from a Lefever catalog of the day.

I have never loaded shells below around the 7-8k psi range when loading smokeless, even for Damascus & Twist. As of yet have seen no reason to do so. Pressures much below that are outside the Design Element of most smokeless powders. Smokeless doesn't ignite as easily as Black & burns with a differing characteristic. It also needs to be used within its design element. With the exception of very fast powders such as Bullseye or Red-Dot this does not include 5K or less loads. Those pressures are simply playing on the ragged edge of design for the slower powders.

Ted;
31 years ago I needed to have a Biopsy done. My regular MD told me he "Would do it" if I insisted, but didn't really like to do surgery & would prefer to send me to another doctor to have it done. I appreciated his honesty & went to the doctor he recommended. My doctor did remain my regular one until he retired & he did not refuse to do my procedure, just preferred me to have another do it.

That however is not the situation I am seeing here. Perhaps I misunderstood the statement, but I did not get the impression the Gunsmith felt un-qualified to work on a Smith or even that he felt someone else was better. Rather he just refused to work on one because "He Didn't Like Them". If I take a gun to a Smith I could really care less if that happens to be a brand He Likes.

I once made a V spring for a Spanish Copy of a Colt revolver. I didn't like the gun & Would not personally have spent the money it cost him to get it made on the gun. He however for some reason wanted it Fixed, so I accommodated him. A few years back I bought a car which my Wife liked. I wasn't particularly fond of it. At some point the AC quit working on it. I carried it to my favorite mechanic. He didn't particularly like it either. but he fixed it. Did a good job at reasonable cost. That was all I asked of him, I didn't ask him to like it.

Miller,
There comes a point when a craftsman is not in need of all the work he can get. There are a few gunsmiths who are at this point, who can afford to be selective about what they undertake. To the few who have made it, I begrudge them nothing, they are at a point where art, skill, and the ability to do consistent excellent work have given them that luxury .
You know who they are. They don�t need you. They can undertake what they choose.
If what you are bringing isn�t what they are interested in doing, so be it. Nobody has a gun to my head to bring it to them, and if they are at a high enough level to be selective about what they do, good for them.
I�d rather have them tell me they aren�t interested in my project, then to have them price it at three times what it should cost, in hopes I�ll go away.

Best,
Ted

Well Ted;
As I do not currently even own an L C Smith, nor have no real desire to do so the point is not really worth arguing. I will just say though that you are now adding in criteria which was not in the original post to which I responded.

What I responded to was given as "Proof" that Smiths were essentially Worthless Junk as some competent gunsmiths refused to work on them
My solution in this circumstance would still be "Find Another Smith" & with an attitude like that he would not get a Crescant or a Purdey of mine to work on.

Miller,
Hindsight being 20/20, I should note that the term junk was a bit harsh, and I'm sorry I used it. I was thinking in general terms as to what a top gunsmith might want to busy himself with, not a particular gun. As Keith has pointed out, most guns have some issues that keep them from being perfect, and it is up to us to figure out which gun, and which issues, we can live with. Some guys love their 'Smiths, or Cresents.

The idea that a top gunsmith is the equivalent of an auto mechanic is a bit flawed. In my little hamlet, of 60,000 souls, I have perhaps a dozen auto mechanics well qualified to work on anything I have ever owned, within 2 miles. I'd be willing to bet there are 200+ mechanics who can fix cars in town, and I'd bet there are 1000 or more of them working in Anoka county.

I do not believe there is a gunsmith who is the equivalent of a Dewey Vicknair, James Flynn, Kirk Merrington, or Paul Hodgins living in the state of Minnesota.

If there was one of those guys living here, I'd suggest he would likely be uninterested in working on any lower grade guns. As none other than the Beaner explained to us (and, who is more accurate about all thing LC Smith than the Beaner?) low grade "Smiths aren't really worth any money.

Bingo.

I've known perhaps a dozen honest English best shotgun owners, and perhaps a dozen more who could have bought in, easily, but used something closer to the second tier, still very valuable guns. NONE of them question the price charged for the guns, for the maintenance, or for any repairs. They don't have to, and they grasp that who is working on those guns is not just the guy who can fix a car.

While I can't speak for any of the guys in the above group, I can certainly understand that after they had spent 30-40 years aquiring the tools, skill, and knowledge to make the best guns in the world right, you might not be interested in standing toe to toe with a guy who inherited Gumpa's low end double gun, and trying to explain to him that the repairs it needed were going to be substantially more than the gun was worth, and, further, that you aren't interested in compromising your gunsmithing down to a level at which he would be able to pay. These are guys who have chosen to work on double guns, a design that is pretty much obsolete, and with obsolete quality standards, very rarely seen with anything built today. I don't blame them in the least for wanting to be compensated at the very highest level, and that is going to take working on the very best guns.

There are plenty of general practicioner gunsmiths, to work on everything else.

Best,
Ted

To add another dimension to the discussion, let me mention a personal incident with Dewey Vicknair. I once sent him a set of 32" Fox barrels and a plain Fox A grade action, to have them fitted. When he got to them he called me to discuss the fitting I had asked for. He laid out the costs, what would be the results, and offered that I would have way more in the gun than it would ever be worth, and asked if I wanted to reconsider the job before he started. He was willing to do it, but recognized that I would be terribly "upside-down" afterwards. I thought about it and decided to not have the barrels fitted.

He took a chance by calling me and offering his opinion, and also talked himself out of a job. But, he had a bigger interest in mind than just what he would make off the job. He rose even higher in my eyes because he did that. I'll never forget the conversation, and will always appreciate him for it.

SRH

Judging by the work on his blog, the Fox seems to be a design Dewey thinks highly of.

Best,
Ted

Stan;
I am in total agreement with you, that would also raise his esteem in my eye as well.
BUT, to keep it in perspective as to my post, which somehow seems to be so controversial, how would you have felt if he had told you up front, That gun is a Fox, I don't consider it worthy of my time & effort.
I really believe in that case you would have had a totally different perspective.
Some folks like Foxes better than Smiths, some like Smiths better than Foxes. A few of us like Lefevers better than either. I do feel that its MY choice as to what guns I like, not my Gunsmith's.
So I stand by my statement if a Gunsmith refused to work on a gun of mine just because he didn't "Like" the brand I chose the solution would be simple for me, I'd choose another Gunsmith. "There is NO Indispensable Man".
Period, I've said enough, anyone who can't understand the principle here is just not wanting to look at it the way I said it.

2-piper,

I like LeFever's, Fox's and L.C. Smith's if a Guns Smith does not want to work on any of my guns it's usually because they do not possess the talent and experience to due so.

There are very few Gun Smiths who can work on L.C. Smith guns correctly, usually it take a Master Gun Maker to due the job professionally.

I never judge a gun maker by reputation, I judge his talent by the work he has done on my double guns. Freddie Brunner and Rich Painter are the men who work on my good L.C. Smith, LeFever and Fox double guns.

It's always my choice as to which double guns I purchase, nobody else makes that decision for me, few have my engineering back ground to even begin to make those kind of decisions for me. If you happen to like certain Gun Smith's work, and he does a good job for you and others you know, please employ him to work on your guns. However never tell me which Gun Maker I need to employ, recommendations are nice, however do not over step your bounds or your knowledge.

Further when you talk about these burst tests, put up the actual copies of the test results, not what you think might have happened. The one engineering criteria we know for sure is no Damascus set of Barrels can equal the Krupp metallurgical formula when pressure tested, not even the Sr Joseph best Damascus. If a test is done that destroys the Brown Rotary Bolt, the complete Hodges type breech, barrels and stock will be destroyed along with it, in reality proving very little, except you destroyed a complete double gun at a certain pressure.

RGD/Dave
L.C. Smith Man