Miller, I don't have any evidence that the extermal slotted sear adjustment screw does not belong on a 29k G grade. All I have is observations and conjecture until those factory records surface... just like everyone else. Elliot stated that these were only found on E grade and above. They may be an anomoly on my FE and GE guns only because these two are later production.
I have seen pictures of Lefevers stamped Ithaca, N.Y., but never got to actually examine one up close and personal. I have read that they soon ran out of English Walnut blanks and turned to using Black Walnut as Ithaca used on their own guns, but dammit, I can't recall where I saw that. Can anyone confirm that? I have seen a couple Lefevers that looked factory stocked, but the wood appeared to be Black Walnut.
DrBob, some conjecture on my part once again, but the reason I thought this gun may be a prototype I grade was based on the serial number, which would place it just prior to Dan Lefever's departure. I can imagine the Durstons having a frame stamped I, fitted with those less costly fluid steel barrels, a semi-pistol grip stock, no forearm escutcheon, perhaps a plain incised buttplate, and showing it to Dan... which could have been the last straw for him. I have read that he absolutely did not wish to produce a plainer cheaper gun to compete with Belgian imports, but then again, we see him producing the O-Excelsior grade crossbolt just a few years later. Why use a dolls head frame for an I grade prototype? Why not, when thats all you have in frames and barrels? That alphabetical downward progression would have been exactly what was done when F became the lowest grade gun in the product line, followed by the G grade, and then the H grade. Take away the LAC buttplate, the capped pistol grip option, the more expensive twist barrels, maybe the cocking indicators, and we have a prototype I grade. One collector e-mailed me a bunch of information last year supporting his conclusion that the I grade possibly pre-dated the DS grade. His ideas and evidence make more sense after seeing this frame. I too wish the original poster would come back with additional information and pictures.
I can agree with the estimate of production numbers as high as 2000 a year in Ithaca from 1916-1919. And I would tend to believe that the bulk of those guns were nearly identical to their Syracuse counterparts. If Ithaca built guns were as "common" as D.M. Lefever crossbolt guns, we would seldom ever even see one. That's why I tend to question the large numbers of guns, especially lower serial number guns, that are attributed to Ithaca, just because they are a little different, strange, or unusual. We see anomolies throughout the life of the company. I think that's understandable when you have Dan and his sons, and others constantly tinkering with the design. And I still question the oft repeated notion that upwards of 1/3, or around 22,000 guns, would have been built out of sequence. Yet when you look at some of the old available serial number lists, you see fairly uniform batches of E grades followed in general numerical progression by fairly uniform batches of something else. We see very similar runs or batches in the Parker Gun Serialization book.
I didn't chime in to upset any apple carts, but I do think some erroneous information has been repeated about Lefevers for years and has come to be accepted as factual. We may never know all the answers, but then, they wouldn't be so interesting if we ever did have all the answers.
