doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Stock for Syracuse Arms "The Syracuse"

No, The stock I will sell you is just like Philberts, it has a round knob PG.

A stock like the example in Hammerjack's photo would be from a Grade B SAC gun or higher, and I suspect in that photo above is actually from a Grade D Hollenbeck that was featured in the DGJ a few years ago.

With Syracuse, low serial numbers don't always denote early production on mid and higher grade guns; but GENERALLY, early Grade 3 SAC guns will have a round knob grip (but could have the $2 optional capped/carved PG, although the round knob grip is what you will find featured in catalogs up to 1904). In 1904, both the pocket and full sized catalogs illustrated the Grade 3 with the "carved" full pistol grip, as we see in Hammerjack's photo; and also a checkered cheek panel (but without the carving seen behind the cheek panel in Hammerjack's photo). Most Grade 3 guns I've seen have plain grained wood; but it is English walnut, and was described in the catalog as "imported Italian walnut". The catalog also described the Grade 3 "as identical to the Grade 2 gun with the exception of engraving"; which pattern is virtually identical to the Grade A gun. Auto ejectors were always optional on the Grade 3, as was the ejector on/off switch; which option was not cataloged as available until 1902.

Any comments on the overall quality of Syracuse Arms Co. guns? I see them occasionally at gun shows and they are usually priced about the same as the hardware store doubles. You don't even find values in Blue Book or Standard Catalog, but it sounds as though ClapperZappers' $60.00 project gun was a decent buy. I picked up a 12 ga. field grade with fluid steel barrels a couple years ago, but have not shot it yet. I've been told they are not as well made as L. C.'s, Bakers, Ithacas, etc., but most I see are pretty sound and on face.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Original-Syracuse-Ar...=item5d2b0cac34

Clapper, you see this??

The Syracuse gun was out of production early in 1905, and at that time all of America's "best" makers were still scrambling to improve their guns, except that LC Smith had already undergone their last improvement (save for the FW frame); and Fox was yet to arrive on the scene. In my opinion, when SAC left the scene; they were as good, or better than any of their market contemporaries (but your question is a loaded question, and one over which a spittin' contest ain't worth the effort). As to prices of SAC guns on today's market, I've never seen a SAC serial number above 40,000; and it seems that for an American maker's guns to be collectible, that maker needed to have produced more guns and have created a larger following. Low grade guns kept the SAC in business, so the vast majority of the surviving SAC guns seen for sale these days will be low grades; the Grade OO, Grade 0, and Grade 2 which only differ in appearance as to type of barrel steel used in manufacture (fluid steel/"Triplet Steel", Twist/"New Twist",Damascus/"Improved Damascus" respectively, with Improved Damascus also being used on the Grade 3 gun). These low grade SAC guns were "built for business" (not looks), are extremely well fitted and finished (maybe our forum member with the near new Grade O gun will post pics again); but are butt ugly once the original finishes are worn and faded. Grades of SAC guns higher than Grade A (the B, C,& D guns) are very rare, are beautiful guns, and command a good price when they are found (but not on the scale of a Parker, Lefever, etc from a similar grade range). The highest grade SAC gun, the Grade D, was cataloged at $475 in 1903 and '04; that's higher than a Parker AA or Lefever Optimus from the same period; and they did sell some unknown number of Grade D guns, as I had recorded more that 10 Grade D guns when I quit keeping serial number records. Too much information to relate here, but if you revisit old issues of the DGJ you'll find much more of my SAC research published there.

One other thing to be aware of when contemplating using a salvaged SAC stock on another SAC gun; in 1902 SAC widened and lengthened the top strap, and also extended frame sides so that the sides of the stock could be inletted into the frame (as with an Ithaca Flues). This means that stocks made after this production transition will not interchange with/fit frames on earlier models and vice/versa. Also be aware that SAC used at least three different sized 12-bore frames, which could also impact interchangeability within stocks from the same production period.

Thanks much for all that topgun! Though my 0 grade Syracuse is worn, it is tight and not abused, and despite its' thin finish, I always thought it was an attractive gun. Certainly nicer lines than N. R. Davis, Peerless, amd the like. I just never bothered shooting it because I was led to believe it was a cheap gun.

Do you happen to have the volume and issue numbers of thr DGJ's with your articles? I have quite a few, but no Index and Reader. Thanks again,

Keith

I purchased the gun so that I might study the self adjusting lockup system "guaranteed to never shoot loose". I suspected that there could be several different frame contours (this one is quite svelt)and that effects stock interchange.
I was about to pm Gunny as to whether it was a capped knob or round. If it was a round knob, I'd get out the calipers. But then Numrich's ad was presented.

I have felt the Syracuse was an excellent, well balanced design. I am looking forward to it's study.

BTW, the articles in the DGJ got me interested in these shotguns. I originally thought that the triangular rebate in the frame was unique, and quirky, but then I started to read about the self adjusting lockup.

Keith: It's been so long since those articles were published that I honestly don't recall all the issues; only that my research was published as a series and was spread over 10-11 issues. I actually wrote an article on the Grade three, but never submitted the piece, as I became disgusted with the fact that my work was being combined with that of another researcher so that adequate space did not remain for illustrative pics and captions.

CZ: The Grade 3 actually seems to be a rarer grade than the Grade A SAC gun, so I'm glad to know you are restoring the piece. I attribute that conclusion examples found, and to the price points between the Grade 3 and Grade A; the Grade 3 was listed at $50, with ejectors it was $65 with another $5 for the optional on/off device (after 1902), and another $2 for capped or full PG treatment over the standard round knob. The Grade A gun listed for $70-75 and came standard with ejectors (and the on/off device after 1902), better wood and checkering, fancy Damascus or Krupp steel, and the grip treatment of your choice. The nicest Grade 3, finishes wise, example I've seen is a neat little 16-bore and is owned by C. Baumohl; perhaps Chris will post some photos. The most interesting Grade 3 I've seen belongs to C. Schotz. With that gun, the engraver began his work on what appears to be a frame bearing the standard Grade 3 pattern, and ended with a fully engraved frame; the transition was superb, and the finished result very pleasing to the eye. Afterward the 3 stamp on the frame was over stamped "D", but the gun was shipped with standard Grade 3 Damascus barrels, wood, and checkering; but the gun lacks the game scene engravings and special stock carvings seen on all other actual Grade D SAC guns. This gun was most likely done for an employee, but could have been an experimental piece that was submitted as a suggested pattern to be used on one of the higher grade SAC guns. Perhaps Chris will post a photo or two of his interesting gun.

Topgun, as I read the articles, I thought it odd that there seemed to be two stories being combined.
If you look at the advertising panels shown in the DGJ articles, you will see the stock of the grade 3 is different at the nose than the other models in the advertisement. A heavier shape, a larger radius. Also, that the same gun was used to depict the ejector model in later ads.
They probably had 1 gun, and just faked whether it was ejector or not in the plates.

I'm not restoring this gun in the classic sense. I am refining repair and finish techniques. And studying a rather unique mechanical system. It will work as designed when I'm done, look decent, and be ready for another 100 years.
It has a great feel to it(for my tastes) so, I'll use it to take some grouse.
Note: I agree on the shallow engraving. I cannot decide if the routinely shallow scratching I see on vintage shotguns is due to burnishing, or just technique. I expect just due to turn-a-round time necessary.

I really want one of the damascus 20's of the period with the curlew, snipe, and plover game scenes.