doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com NRA magazine article FUBAR

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!