What is everyone's thoughts on #7.5 versus #8 sized shot when hunting for smaller feathered quarry (i.e. doves, woodcock, grouse, quail, etc). Comfortable shot ranges? How about speeds: 1100, 1200 or 1300 fps? Any differences on clay birds?


I would love to hear everyone's preference. Please feel free to share any hunting anecdotes, preferred loads, anything!

7.5 is best for the light birds you have listed. In 12 bore I like 1 oz at 1200fps. In my experience down birds not pulled feathers. They liked them in Argentina and the loads for all birds were very light ( shot weight)by our standards down there.
Ducks 1 oz, geese 1 1/8

bill

The shot performance is better of course with 7-1/2. On the other hand, I like to use the bigger shot because there is less to pick when you prepare the birds for the table!

For clay pigeons, I like 8's at 1200fps for just about everything. But I only shoot 3/4oz in the 12, so it gives me a few more BBs. I have friends who shoot only 7 1/2s at clays but use 1 1/8oz of shot.

FSJ,

The difference in the 7 1/2's and 8's in our forest has a lot to due with the density of the forest habitat. Early season when the habitat is like the Viet Nam Jungle here in Pa, Ny, Vt, NH and WVa the 7 1/2 shells push the habitat a lot better for downing flying Grouse. In fact 6's work even better for shooting thru the edges of big Hemlock Tress and Giant Grape Vines. When the leaves are partially down and a gunner can get a closer better view of the Grouse, the 8's work well. In fact at this time I go to the SpredR shells with great success.

This also holds true for different double gun use, in the very early season I have been known to use my 12 Gauge for cutting thru the thick foliage, using Fiocchi hi grade quick 7 1/2 and 6 shells, then when the leaves are partially down, I go to the 16 Gauge, with SpredR shells, 8's under the 1st trigger and 6's under the back trigger. When the leaves are almost completely down I use the 20 and 28 gauge double guns in the same manner.

Ryman Gun Dog
L.C. Smith Man

Ken Graft watches his Gordon Setter Ruby on Point, at the edge of the thick forest, with his 16 Gauge Parker DHE.

RGD,

I hear you. And yes the Hemlocks, might as well be body armor.

I want to say I was reading Burton Spiller and he was discussing the merits #8 on grouse and woodcock especially due to the slightly more fine, but much more plentiful pellet count filling out the pattern more densely. However, it appears 7.5 seems to be winning so far...

FSJ,

Remember in Spiller's era the forests were a lot different with lots of edges to hunt. Also the shells were quite different with slow burning powders, before the invention of the Nitro type shells, so the 8's worked very well with the more closed choked double guns, in Spiller's era.

Ryman Gun Dog
L.C. Smith Man



We still have places in our mountains today that the forest edges go on for miles and miles, still good places to use the 8's, when the leaves are fully down. We have some of the greatest Grouse & Woodcock habitat on earth here in Potter County, Pa. Along with some of the spookiest birds, due to our forests large number of predators.

These guys are using 8's under the 1st trigger and 6's under the 2nd.




If everything works out correctly and the shot is true, this is the end result, using good shells.

This may have been Gunny Bowman's last Grouse hunt, glad he got a couple nice big birds that day, he may never be able to walk the mountains again, his Agent Orange has finally caught up with him. He is a world class Grouse Gunner and one of the Best Marine Sniper Instructors who has ever lived.

I do not live in an area which has grouse. My experience is thus with quail, dove & woodcock. I have used both #8 & #7½ on these. I never had a problem killing any of these with either size "IF" it was hit. If I m shooting 7/8 oz I will normally go with #8 for the extra shot. More than 1 oz I would normally go with #7½ to avoid putting so many shot in the bird. For 1 oz I might go either way depending upon the gun's choke. Althoug I never kept records I know that one gun with which I had the highest percentage of birds killed to shots fired on quail & woodcock was a 12 gauge firing 1 oz of #8's at around 1125 fps. This gun had 28" Damascus barrels choked ¼ choke in both barrels & weighed a couple of ounces under 7 lbs. For some reason I never carried it on a dove shoot, though it should have been ideal for all except very high fliers.

This was some years back & shells were loaded with the old original DuPont HyScore (pre 700X) to around 8-8½K PSI, never felt a need for any lower pressure. I foolishly sold it but it has since come back home, but by that time I was not able to get out & hunt as I had previously.

It was also a most excellent cottontail gun with same load but #6 shot. At that point my Dad loved rabbit hunting with a pack of Beagles, so I went with him a lot. He passed away back in 1996 but had been unable to hunt for a few years prior to that.

No difference between #8 and #7.5 up here on grouse and WC during "bird season" (October). Talking .410 through 12. #7.5 is easier to find in 3" .410s.

#6 with some constriction makes sense for late season grouse, especially dogless. Probably makes sense as a second bbl load - for all I'd know. Early season #6 tears them up too much.

OTOH, saw a noticeable difference between #8 and #7.5 on preserve phez.

The difference probably isn't worth thinking about though I admit that I have pretty much settled on 1 0z of 7 1/2 for grouse. If all I had were 7/8oz 8s, I wouldn't stay home. On one week of hunting many years ago, all I had was a box of High brass 20 gauge sixes. I killed grouse and woodcock with them just fine. When I was a kid, no. 6 was what most people used. We like to imagine that small differences in shot size matter but in my experience, the difference isn't very noticable if both charges weigh the same. The extra pellet number seems to balance out the decrease in energy per pellet within the range that most small birds are shot.

Bobwhites, WC, and Dove, I prefer # 8's at about 1200. Any gauge from 28 to 12. If I'm shooting my .410 on Bobwhites I'll use # 8 1/2 in the right barrel and # 8 in the left. I shot a bunch of preserve chukar last winter with my .410 for that # 7 1/2 in both barrels.

Clays are all # 8's.

Dennis

Alder adder,

Got to admit it really does not matter to me whether I use 8's or 7 1/2's under the 1st trigger, they pretty much kill the Grouse in the same manner. As long as I have patterned the shells and there are no large gaps in the 7 1/2 patterns. It does matter as to which manufacturers 7 1/2 shells, I use in the gun however. Some manufacturers 7 1/2 shells do not pattern decently out of my L.C. Smith and J.P. Sauer double guns. However when I use the SpredR loads they pattern so well it does not matter if I shoot 8's or 7 1/2 shells. So as soon as I can I shoot the SpredR loads, for both Grouse and Woodcock hunting.

Ryman Gun Dog
L.C. Smith Man

8s will do 90% of what I need done on doves, quail and woodcock. 7 1/2s excel in the late season on older, tougher and high flying birds. Same deal for clay birds...........use the 7 1/2s on the really long targets, 8s on the rest. That said, I get very reliable, hard breaks on clays at 60 yards with 8s out of a .020" choke, at 1150 fps mv. Density is just as important as retained energy. Three 8s may kill a bird, or break a clay when two 7 1/2s might not.

I'd never feel the need for any load above 1175 fps. on any game bird you listed (I don't hunt grouse). The faster a load leaves the muzzle the faster it sheds velocity. There's not near as much difference in velocity and energy at 30+ yards as there is at the muzzle. The only shotgun load I want high speed is steel, for ducks.

SRH

I used 7 1/2 and 8s both without seeing a difference, always 1 1/8 oz in 16 ga with open choke guns, on quail, dove and rabbit.
Ryman tell the Gunny we appreciate his service and Welcome home brother. Like him I can't follow a bird dog any more, I miss it a lot.
Mike

I have settled on 8’s for the smaller birds (3/4-7/8 oz).
Mainly doves and WC here though we do have some grouse in the NE part of Iowa.
Quail are usually found while persuing pheasants so in the early season its 1 oz of 7’s in the right and 1 1/8 oz of 6’s in the left.
All loads moving between 1150-1200 fps.

Der Ami,

Roger that!


Matt Stolley,

I like the Fiocchi 7's also, great shells.

Ryman Gun Dog

Rabbits (Cottontails) are soft skinned & easy to kill. I always preferred # 5 or #6, not for their greater penetration but to simply not fill them with so many shot. Once when hunting with a 20 ga Ithaca Flues which had two inches cut from the barrels I inadvertently left a 7/8oz load of #9's in my vest pocket & loaded it in the right barrel., near cylinder. Shot a rabbit broadside at around 20-25 yds. As Jerry Clower would have said it was killed Graveyard Dead but made hamburger meat out of it, wasn't fit to eat was so full of blood shot meat.

I did a lot of rabbit hunting as a kid and teenager. We steered away from the heavy shot sizes because they 'homogenized' the guts too bad. Seven and a halfs seemed right to me...Geo

Geo, you weren't making rabbit ortolan, were you? I always took the guts out of my rabbits before cooking and eating them. How badly shot up they are is always a function of shot size, shot charge, choke density, and range. And the same goes for choice of shot size for game birds. Like shooting early season grouse when there is still a lot of leaf cover, quite a few rabbits are shot in high grass and weeds where larger pellets penetrate the cover better.

As Miller says, it doesn't take much to kill a cottontail rabbit. When I was a teen, I once decided to shoot a rabbit with my pump-up Benjamin .177" pellet rifle. I didn't want to kill it because it was in a residential neighborhood, and neighbors were outside. I only wanted to sting him to discourage him from remaining in the area near the garden. So I only gave the rifle two pumps which probably gave a muzzle velocity less than 300 fps. Since he was about 100 feet from the garage, I held about a foot over his back because I knew the pellet would drop at least that far at that low velocity. When I popped him, he jumped about three feet straight into the air and came down stone dead. That's one of those shots you never forget. I can't imagine that the pellet even penetrated his skin at that range and velocity. I found no sign of a wound. He probably died from a heart attack.

I find that I miss equally well with either 7.5 or 8 shot.

Steve

I generally run about an ounce of 6s when I hunt. Pheasant and grouse season overlap in MN, and many of the places I hunt you can find both. 6s also lessen the "running around on the ground" factor for birds that are going to die, but, aren't just there, yet. And the "too many pellets in this bird" thing, which, makes 'em hard to eat.
Many years ago, I had a nice conversation with an English gunsmith, who told me he only used #8 when he went pheasant hunting. The conversation was more about loads for older English guns than hunting, so his load would have been more typical for clay shooting than any pheasant hunting I did. I tried a typical low brass load in the more open barrel of my McNaughten boxlock, with predictable results, ie, my Gordon spent multiple hours running down winged pheasants, that day. I went back to 5s and 6s later that afternoon.
On another conversation with him, I discovered he had never hunted pheasants in the US, and had only hunted birds that were driven to him, and birds that weren't all that wild, either. I feel guilty about shooting incoming birds I encounter in the wild, as they seem to die several magnatudes easier than those cagy birds that get up perhaps 35 yards out going straight away.
Grouse give up the ghost a bunch easier than do WMA wild pheasants, in my experience. I still use 6s on them. Force of habit, at this point.

Best,
Ted

Ted S,

Nothing wrong with 6's for Grouse, especially under the 2nd Trigger. However I like the #5's best for wild Pheasant or hold overs. The stocked stuff I use the 6's like you do.

When the foliage is real heavy in the 1st part of the Pa Grouse season most of time I use 7's or 7 1/2 under the 1st trigger and 6's under the 2nd trigger. I also like the Fiocchi 7's under the 1st trigger, 5's under the 2nd when hunting Pheasant.

Ryman Gun Dog
L.C. Smith Man

After Thanksgiving, pheasant hunting in the Southern part of MN, and on trips to the Dakotas, I use 5s. There will be no ruffed grouse to contend with on these trips, and the pheasants that remain will be smarter.

Best,
Ted

# 4’s are serious wild pheasant medicine too.

Patterns get shaky with 4s in the guns I use, after about 30 yards.

A pity, as I have about 5000 1 1/4 oz #4 lead loads hanging around the homestead, left overs my Dad never used after steel became the law.

I shot a fox one time, figure it was out 30-35 yards, with 1 1/4 of 4s, the thing laid down and died before the smoke cleared. It had one hole on each side of the pelt, through both lungs and the heart. Gun was an A5 with a 26” Hastings barrel and an IC choke. Patterned the gun with that load, later, and was surprised I got him with anything.


Best,
Ted

I've never hunted woodcock.

I like one ounce of eights at about 1150 fps for everything else on the list.

Best,

Mike

GREAT to see you posting, Mike. I would add that winter, and cold weather add another dimension to shooting birds, and 8s might be a bit light when the leaves are down and the temp are down in the single digits, for ruffed grouse. Ditto prarie grouse.
Might not apply where you are, or hunt.

Thats all I got.

Best,
Ted

If those 5K ever get seriously in your way, Ted, I'll pay the shipping to get them out of your way.

They are "medicina muy mala" for crows.

SRH

If I had a choice of one size, one load lead it would be 1 1/4 oz No. 4.

King Brown,

If you are mostly a Duck Hunter and maybe every once in a while shoot some Pheasants also, I can see your choice. However I want 8's thru 6's, for my Grouse and Woodcock hunting, 5's for my wild Pheasant.

RGD/Dave
L.C. Smith Man

I would certainly hate to be limited to one shot size & one load. "IF" two sizes & loads were allowed & lead were legal for all I could make a pretty good case for an ounce of #7 & 1¼ oz of #5. Add a 3rd size & I would go up to #3 for pass shooting geese. Do you note the pattern, I like the Odd numbers rather than the evens but would pick #8 over #9. for smaller than #7. As #7 is not aways easy to come by I have usually relied on #7½ instead.

For upload bird hunting. Grouse, quail pass shoot doves. 8 and 7 1/2 is all I use. 12, 20 and 28 gauges for 410 7 1/2 and 6s seems to be my thing.

2-piper,

If you are having trouble getting the #7 you like, Lion Country's on line store has the Fiocchi's all the time, order on line and get free shipping right to your door! I order them shipped to my back woods log cabin all the time! Great shells no doubt about it.

RGD/Dave
L.C. Smith Man

Stan,

You get what you play for. I think that quote comes from the pool player, Minnesota Fats.

Tell you what-send me a PM with an address, and I’ll put together a care package for you. It won’t be all of ‘em (they are in the basement, and it might take me weeks to get ‘em all up) but, it will be more than enough for you and an interested kid to enjoy a few afternoons of crow shooting. I think there are a lot of WWs, Federals, and some Actives, maybe some odd stuff, like Sears, loaded by one of the big three. I’ll mix ‘em up a bit. Mostly 1 1/4 oz loads, might need to be a bigger kid, but, I’d really like a kid along, and a picture for the brothern, right here, if you can.

Have a great day.

Best,
Ted

Good on ya, Ted.

I was kidding, Ted, but if you're serious I certainly would appreciate it. I love shooting those peanut-eatin' crows.

P.M. sent

SRH

If Fed-Ex comes to your little corner of the world, I’ll get this off on Monday, Stan. Had a box just right to get a little care package off to you.



Use ‘em in good health. Maybe not in your ‘Smith, however.

Best,
Ted

Absolutely not in the Smith. Even tho' it is a 16 ga., if it were a 12 it wouldn't get fed 1 1/4 oz. fodder. I only have a couple S X Ss that I would feed them to.

Best, SRH

Oh MY, I shot those active shells one year in Mexico hunting ducks.
They had to be the most powerful 2 3/4" loads I ever pulled the trigger on...Geo

Hence, the advice not to use them in a "Smith...


Best,
Ted

This reminds me of a flat of non-US made ammunition I bought a few years ago. This was very powerful and heavy recoiling ammunition made in Denmark. I only purchased it because it was incredibly cheap. I used them on a pheasant hunt on one occasion in my Brno SxS in 12 gauge. My hunting partner and I later dubbed the shells the "Hammer of Thor" given the recoil and the effect it had on the rising rooster.

4 - 1 1/2 - 4

That's got to be pushing 1300 fps. A 3 3/4 - 1 5/8 is 1280. Man, that is a pterodactyl load. No wonder it hit hard on both ends.

I've heard of the performance of the old Activ loads on crows from one of my friends. Can't wait to try some.

SRH

Ted S,
As usual your advice is seriously flawed. Gentlemen load them in a good L.C. Smith Pigeon Grade gun and shoot them up. Clean & oil the gun properly when you are done shooting. Have fun!

RGD/Dave
L.C. Smith Man

Special Ordered L.C. Smith Pigeon Grade 12 gauge - My Grandfathers favorite bird gun.

I can remember the 2 3/4" "Baby Magnum" coming on the market. As I recall inthose dys the dram equivelent was not marked on them they simply said Max. The 3 3/4DE*1¼oz load listed @ 1330 FPS & the Max-1½oz load was around 1300 FPS as I recall. I was Young & Foolish at the time so bought a few of them & as long as the gun had "Steel" barrels I would shoot them in it. I did not shoot a lot of them but had no problem with the ones I shot. Some of the guns I shot them from I would definitely not do so today.

Only real concern I would have with a heavier Smith would be the Wood. This not because i=of its reputation but because the wood is old. This would hold true of other older doubles as well, including the Box Locks. I once had a pre 1913 00E Smith with a perfectly sound stock, no cracks that I ever saw & I did look it over closely. This was another gun that had been rode pretty hard.

I don't believe in abusing anything, including guns, but some do carry conservatism to a ridiculous extreme.

Dave you are a very lucky man....

I agree with jOe; that is one fine shotgun and the family connection just adds that much more to it.

I have my great grandfather's L.C. Smith, but it is only suitable for hanging on the wall.

If I'm hunting only grouse, I choose 7.5 all day long. If I know the area has more Woodcock I'd choose 8's. 7/8 ounce in a 20 gauge. 1200 FPS.

Miller,
The only real concern with the LC Smith is pretty much everything. Pointed out by a few, including you, is the fact the Brown rotary bolt is almost NEVER properly fitted to both sides. I’ve seen more than one that was “self opening”, but, not in the way our English brothern use the term. To be fair, neither gun was new, but, neither had been rode hard and put away wet from what I could see.
Many are the reports of the damn things going off on closing, something I have not actually seen, but, my hunting buddy Lloyd has, enough that he mentioned it when the subject of “Sweet Elsie” came up at camp. Lloyd also reports the ‘Smith WILL go off if it falls to the ground when it is loaded. I suppose more than one gun design falls into that category, however, and would be trumped by safe handling. I’ve never seen that one, either.
I have no reason to doubt him. He spent years in a good gun shop in the trade.
If one actually READS the list of things wrong with the design, top to bottom, on Mr. Vicknair’s blog, and squares it with the years and effort he puts into making guns of all kinds right, and the results he gets, it becomes much harder to continue to make excuses for the ‘Smith.
I consider a lowly Tobin better than the ‘Smith, for the simple reason that even though the frame is weak, the top bolt will keep the gun shut after the shot, no matter how hard, or long the gun has been used, and it takes a pretty deliberate tug on the trigger to get the Tobin to go off.
My opinion only. But, I didn’t come to it by reading magazines on the subject.

I don’t really have a good use for the ammunition in the purple box, shown above. But I’d likely not run it in any of my good doubles. They cost more to fix. I have an auto loader that was my Dad’s that would handle it, but, nothing I hunt with a shotgun requires light artillary, or much more than 1 oz of shot.

Best,
Ted

A few points here. First as I believe every regular here knows I am a Lefever fan & not a Smith Aficionado. While Yes I stated the rotary bolt was seldom fitted to serve its intended function in both planes I am convinced the Smith frame is plenty strong without the benefit of the second function of the rotary bolt. Generally speaking the barrels are bolted solidly to the frame, its the longitudinal portion which lacks in the fitting department.

While true I have heard of Smiths opening on their own I will have to say I have known a lot of folks who would have Nothing But a Smith & do not personally know of anyone who had that problem with them. If they did they certainly kept their mouths shut about it.

I will stand behind my statement that the only concerns I would have in firing the 3 3/4-1¼ load from a good condition would be the old stock wood & recoil if it was a light weight one. The frame & barrels will take it.

Again "IF" I had a L C Smith which needed "Smithing" I would want a good man doing it. "IF" he refused he would simply get no more work from me. If I wanted a Jack Leg doing the work I could do it myself. In fact I have actually worked on a few Smiths. No reason I can see that anyone would refuse to work on one other than Absolute Pure Prejudice, not truly a good Quality for a Gunsmith in my "Not So Humble Opinion".

If a guy tells me he doesn’t want to work on a ‘Smith, and he is the top Darne mechanic in the new world, you can bet he will get some work from me.
A guy telling you he honestly wants someone else to work on your Purdey, or, ‘Smith, or, Darne, while you know he has great talent on a different make of double, is probably just being honest, and doing you a favor.

Best,
Ted

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 2¼ oz of shot & with those powder charges he was way above & beyond what an ordinary 1¼ 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 3/4-1¼ 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 3¼- 1¼ load in anything larger than #7½ 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. 1¼ oz of shot was however a common load for the 12 gauge in the era the Smiths & Lefevers were built. Those old loads using 1¼ oz pushed by 28 grains of Infallible or Ballistite , 3½ 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

Beans,

Well that didn't take long. Only a 6 day break? I will entreat you to please take a breath on this forum. Lots of guys know a heck of a lot of stuff.

On to the subject matter...

The tests referred to above were conducted years ago, published in the DoubleGun Journal by Sherman Bell and Tom Armbrust, the series entitled "Finding Out For Myself."

They were extensive, and included all types and grades of both Damascus and fluid steel, including Krupp as I recall. You would will find it enlightening to read that series in it's entirety before making statements replete with absolutes.

Krupp was excellent, but Bell's tests showed the best of ALL types of barrels pretty much failed at the same pressure ranges.

I own Lefevers with Krupp barrels, and with Damascus. So long as I inspect the Damascus for fissures, I trust them about equally. The latter are certainly prettier.

Highest grade Lefevers offered Kilby or Whitworth fluid steel, Krupp went no higher than grade B...perhaps some A's.

As I recall there is also Birmingham proof house data which places both of those steel types surviving loads higher than Krupp and others.

I feel like Drew Hause may have something to share on that.

- NDG

Bell reported tests of two guns, both were Parker G grades, one Damascus & one Steel. Both guns were burst at pressures of around 30K PSI. The Boltiong had nothing to do with the failure of either, the chambers were burst in the wall between the chamber & the hole for the extractor leg.

Buck Hamlin tested a Lefever & an L C Smith, both Damascus, by re-chambering them to 3½" & started with the heaviest load using Blue Dot powder in the loading manuals. He went up from there. He stopped short of destruction o the Smith when he couldn't keep the gun Closed because that "BROWN ROTARY BOLT" kept un-bolting itself. The Lefever bolt performed admirably & he did continue loading it up to destruction. He did not actually measure the pressure as I recall, just used extremely heavy charges, well beyond proof charges. Neither the bolting nor the Breeching failed on the Lefever, also burst the chamber walls when the pressure went beyond the limits of the metal used.

So much for the great superiority of the rotary bolt. Its a good system, but it is not Head & Shoulders above any other good system.

2 piper,
Setting up an abnormal pressure test, run by an individual for either of these great american double guns proves nothing, except that the original engineering was fantastic for actual usage. The Hodge Breech work and either of these engineering designs proves that virtually no amount of normal pressure used for actual manufacturing of fire arms, will damage or distort the locking system in use with normal shells, although the LeFever engineering will need to be adjusted over time, and the Brown Rotary bolt will self adjust with wear.

Further non of these non scientific uncertified individual tests mean anything, they were not done in a scientific certified manner or method, nobody knows if the testing was even done correctly, by these individual testers, no matter what publication they appeared in.

Nudge,
Knock off the superiority crap, it does not work with me. Intreat me to none of your insults or I will now return them in spades.

RGD/Dave
L.C. Smith Man

Beans,

As stated, the testing was done by Tom Armbrust of Ballistic Research in Illinois. All I can do is try to lead you to the data for you to read for yourself.

Not only was the testing NOT "nonscientific" or "uncertified," as you blindly guessed, it was done by a man who does this and other types of load and pressure testing...AS A BUSINESS.

There is no superiority here...we are all students. Which is why you just cannot speak so resolutely about matters on which you're only supposing...without embarassing yourself.

Lots of guys do real research here, either 1st or 2nd hand. Opinions can be quite valid, but in the presence of hard data one is wise to at least reconsider his 'best guesses.'

These tests were about as good as anyone has yet published. And they tested many, many barrels. Bell had put out the call for donor barrels, and lots of people responded.

I spoke extensively to Tom about their conclusions. This wasn't two toothless dudes on YouTube trying to blow stuff up in their grandmothers back yard.

- Nudge

Dave;
I explained the bolting/breeching system in an earlier post. Apparently you still have no comprehension of it. "Both" the Lefever & Smith are self adjusting in the bolting. The top lever will move left on either as the bolts wear.

The Lefever "CAN" be adjusted for hinge joint wear, the Smith "Cannot". You can call that better engineering for the Smith IF you choose to, I Don't.

I will add that I have two guns with absolutely no wear compensation to either the hinge or bolting. One is a J P Clabrough , the other a J P Sauer & Son. Both are SLNE guns, both are more than 100 years old & both are still tight. It just may well be the case that the friction in a self adjusting wear compensation device creates as much (Or More) wear as it compensates for.