doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com No markings on the top rib early LCS

I bought (and sometimes I wonder why) a project LCS. Ser#is 34,7xx.
12ga non ejector, I think it's a Quality1,,a small bit of engraving on the side lock plates and here and there on the action and TG.
The L.C. Smith marking on the lock plates is hand engraved.
I think about 1891 for a mfg'r date as best I can determine.
The frame is contoured on the bottom with the concave portions running lengthwise at the edges.
2 piece top tang. 3 position safety.
Near perfect bores. I was weak and bought it even with a slice of wood broken out under the LH lock and up against the trigger tang.
I though for $150, it can set in the corner with the other stuff and not cause too much worrying about it.


**** Question is,,There are no markings on the bbls at all other than the matchng ser# in the same font that the frame and FE show.
No Hunter Arms, Fulton NY,,no nothing.
A small '2' on the FE lug extension, Plus what are likely the bbl source makers marks on each tube up close to the bbl flats.
Top rib is very finely matted. Examination shows no area that was removed where the marking would have been. Nothing on the tubes thmselves.

Is this common? One that got thru so to speak. I read that the bbls should be marked and that would make sense.
But nothing there!

I'll try pics if Mr 1990's camera will actually work.

I'm not a collector, I work on them alot. But the very fine points of markings, styles, changes , ect make my teeth bleed when trying to assemble all that info inside my
deteriorating brain mass,

Thanks for any help.

If you can’t get your photos up, email them to me, and I will.

tedjs@usfamily.net


Best,
Ted

Kutter: I've been down this road a bit and can likely help you with this one.

1891 was the 2nd year of production at Fulton and the 2nd year of production of the Quality 1 gun. Your gun is considered a "transitional gun", meaning that the parts were mostly from Syracuse, NY, but changes were already underway to streamline production in to what the LCSmith gun was to become under the Hunter Brothers. Your tubes will have no marking because of this transitional period (which runs thru 1892-93). There are a number of differences between these transitional guns and what followed after, so-much-so they were counted-in with the production from Syracuse in Houchin's book.

All the stocks were English walnut (even in the lowest grades) there are two screws in the lower tang, all the screw heads are rounded, not flattened as in the post '93 guns. Your gun should also have the "double-dog" butt plate (only used during the transitional years), it should have the earlier stop-check (which allow for a wider gape upon opening). My '91 gun has English Laminated Steel barrels (as yours might as well). Your gun should also have the "Big Window" 3-position safety and still has "bolsters" on the bottom of the frame that are reminiscent of the earlier Syracuse guns, what else...

1891 is about right, and as such it would be a 'transition gun'.

"Wyoming County Times", November 28, 1889
Syracuse, Nov. 20 – Lyman C. Smith has sold a controlling in the L.C. Smith gun works, of this city, manufacturers of hammerless guns, to John Hunter and his five sons, and Harry Comstock of Fulton, and the works will be moved to Fulton immediately. The new firm will be known as the Hunter & Comstock Arms company and will have the largest gun manufacturing plant in the United States.

"Sandy Creek News", January 2, 1890
The Hunter & Comstock Arms company of Fulton, will hereafter be known as the Hunter Arms Company, the Hunters having bought Comstock’s interest. Comstock retains his rights in all patents taken out by him. The Hunters will make the L.C. Smith gun at their factory.

"Syracuse style" unfinished guns and parts were then shipped to the new factory in Fulton for completion, and were available until about 1892.
These "transition guns" have the large convex ribs on the bottom of the receiver, squared lug (images courtesy of David Williamson)



and a wider forend with a duck bill and vase shaped ebony tip



They usually had no markings on the top of the barrels



and might have Syracuse or Fulton engraving patterns



The Hunter Arms Co. Makers, Fulton, N.Y. Quality No. 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 grades were continuations of the L.C. Smith Maker Syracuse guns, and they were first sold in 1890. The A2, A1, and Monogram were first offered in 1892; the Pigeon in 1893; and the A3 and Quality No. 0 in 1895.

I see that Dr. Drew has filled-in the rest of it, thank you Dr. Drew. I also have a Quality 2 gun from 1890 that looks exactly like a Syracuse gun, except for the shape of the breech balls, which are slightly angled (not the full hemispheres of the earlier guns). It also has the square barrel lug and the bigger bolsters of the original Syracuse guns.

With the engraving you're describing, your gun may be a Quality 2. My Quality 1 only has perimeter line engraving on its lockplates and a Starburst on the hinge pin. If it has damascus tubes it very likely is a Quality 2 gun. Also, the "2" near the barrel lug almost guarantees that.

Does it have the metallic "escutcheon" on the forend?

Thank you all for the information. and for Ted, thank you for the offer to post any pics.

I got a few taken and onto the imgbb.
For some reason the other batch won't transfer. I'll keep trying.

Here's a few that decided to show.








Rounded front edge of the bbl lug.
Oval headed screws on TG (2 screws) and the lock plate screw.
Engraving pic that didn't want to play shows a Qual 2 pattern.

The FE has the vase shaped tip inlay. The center of the checkering pattern is an empty round cutout.
Nice quality wood IMO. Should really perk up with a cleaning. Repairs needed to the FE and the butt stock.
Checkering was recut at one time and not the best skill involved. But more than retrievable.
3 position Safety with a large window cut out, Stop check in the bbl lug.

Butt plate is hard rubber but just a plain plate with horizontal grooves in the mid section. No mfg'rs logo or anything like that.

Mechanically it is tight and works just fine. I will disassemble and at least clean and lube. Fix the wood of course. It has a loose FE lug extension underneath, but that's no problem either to fix.
It'll make a nice Skeet gun with what probably are very tight chokes.
It's the first LSC I have personally owned since I was 14y/o. Just the sunshine side of 80 now.
At that time my Father bought a OO Grade (?) for $25 from the local PD Chief.
With the provided ammo of Peters HV 2 3/4" magnum #4's or 6's (The necessary ammo according to my Father for any small game hunting), it was not a pleasant gun to shoot at all.

When I worked for MArlin, Col Brophy looked up the mfg yr for me,,1902 IIRC. He was interested in any LCS that came in for repair or otherwise. Mine was an otherwise.
Right about that time Brophy convinced the front office to NOT accept any vintage LCS for repair or refinishing. Which they agreed to.
The word sent back with the returned LCS to the customer was that no parts were available.
We had large shipping containers full of any part you could imagine in the 'loft' right above the Repair Dept. All carefully packed and labeled. Brought to North HAven from the old plant in New HAven

Marlin was just a couple yrs into the mfg'r of their 'new LCS- at the time.
That was a treat watching them glue the ribs on and then use the same cheap epoxy they had mixed up for that to then turn around and 'glass bed' the action into the wood.

That is a 2-bar Damascus Quality 2 gun for sure. Chokes are just as likely to be modified (both of my transitional guns are so equipted).

A Syracuse Elsie was a master/apprentice produced firearm. Total production was very small (less than 2000 guns, maybe much less) when compared to what flowed out of Fulton (nearly half a million, counting all the variants). All the "transitional" guns reflect that reality to a large degree, which is likely why Houchin's book counts them in with Syracuse production. They remain faithful to Alexander T. Browns original design.

After the Hunter Brother's were done with them (especially after the 1913 re-design) they were fully-streamlined for "mass production" and were a very different prospect indeed.

Much like Kutter, my very 1st double shotgun was an early Field Grade gun that had been my paternal grandfather's first "purchased" firearm. Love 'em or hate 'em, they made (slightly) better doubles available to the masses and put lots of meat into family pots all over this country and... many of them continue to do so to this day.

Very interesting.
Lloyd is correct regarding the crolle pattern - 2 Iron "Oxford". I tried to enhance the pic of the flats but it is very small size



But the pattern appears to be “Belgian-Damascus Finish” - a décalcomanie pattern stained on (usually Decarbonized) Steel barrels
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yn-0vx1pk19eHwzrfVTEdWz-dlL4VmbBLoH53uqGkFE/edit?tab=t.0

The scrolls are too squarish and seems to repeat themselves, as do the 'stars'



Can you ID the marks at the breech ends? It looks like it might be the Birmingham Provisional proof mark?
No. 1 guns of that era typically had laminated steel barrels, often with the Birmingham mark
No. 2 "Good Damascus" - 2 Iron and we've seen a very few with a Birmingham mark

This is an 1893 Smith A1



BUT Faux Damascus was not used by Birmingham tube makers AFAIK
NO U.S. maker is known to have used Faux Damascus despite the gun show claims.
IF Faux Damascus the barrels would have been a later replacement, and not by Hunter Arms.

If you refinish the barrels please post a full size high resolution image of about 8" of tube where the contrast is most apparent.

I'm probably wrong, but it's fun to speculate.

The missing FE insert is the bakelite dog's head which was standard on pre-1913 No. 2 and up non-ejector guns. I don't know how early they were first used however.
https://gungrip.com/lc-smith-dog-head-forend-insert.aspx

Could this gun be an early 1892 perhaps? The bakelite forend decoration and the later butt-plate makes me think it's a later gun, even into 1893.

Also...


1901 & 1890 guns as examples of Fulton and Syracuse Elsie production.


1891 Quality 1 and 1890 Quality 2


The bolsters on the bottom of the action evolved rapidly away (too much hand fitting!). 1891 Quality 1 on top, 1890 Quality 2 on bottom.By 1893-4 they were all flat-bottomed.


1890 Quality 2 gun in 12 ( 1st year of production @ Fulton) w/escutcheon on forend


1886 Syracuse 10 gauge Quality 3? (not my gun btw) The Syracuse guns could be quite pretty.

Zero mass-production lends itself to that better perhaps...

The gun on the R in the first pic has Syracuse style ribs and rectangular barrel lug. Depending on the SN it could be a transition gun. I do not believe the Syracuse guns had the dog head FE insert.
Long thread regarding transition guns
https://members.boardhost.com/lcsmith/msg/1692625950.html

What is the proper term for them Dr. Drew, I've seen them referred to as frame "bolsters" and "ribs"?

This is what Hollowell says
https://www.hallowellco.com/reinforced_frame.htm

Researcher posted pics of Parkers with both side clips and bolsters here
https://www.doublegunshop.com/forum...p;Board=1&main=47383&type=thread

Dr. Drew:

The features I'm referring to are on the bottom and sides of the main body of action. The one British gun I've owned with them (a back-action John Blanch) has even been referred to as having a "drooping bar".

The feature Hollowell is referencing here is re-inforcing (strengthening) the angle between the water table and the standing breech, not the bottom of the action.

The strengthening embellishment on the sides of the action are "bolsters"
This is the Ithaca Crass "Reinforced Frame"



I've never seen a L.C. Smith Maker, Syracuse ad or catalog naming the embellishment on the bottom of the action. Houchins called them "sculptured ribs" and "concave ribs".

Well...you have bolstered breeches and then bolstered frames IMHO.

Dr. Drew's Ithaca advert reminded me of this one.

A double-ribbed gun? No, it is a "double bolstered gun" with a double-thick breech...



A comparison of early Fulton butplates (and drop at heel)...



Gutta Percha and Bakelite.

A few more pics....hope they are helpful in some way. Some may be a repeat from the last posting

The small mark on each tube on the bottom just in front of the bbl flats is a Brit proof mark on each. Birmingham Proof Hs. Crown/BP (BP in script style letters)
That particular pic is trouble getting it on here. My ancient photo equip,,not anything to do with this site..














Everything works just fine on the gun. Nice and tight, excellent bores and chambers.
Shot a rd of Skeet with it Thursday with the assistance of JollyBill.

Chokes measure w/a caliper at the muzzles at .694 Left bbl and .714 Right Bbl.
I realize the actual bore dia comes into play for an exact reading of constriction, but the bore mic was not at hand like so many other things in the shop. So this is pretty close.

The BP I assume is an early Fulton plate (?). The screws are oval headed and sink deeply into the counter sinks cut into the plate.
The butt stock itself shows that another plate was on the gun at some time (Pic) Extr holes.
The plate on it fits perfectly and appears to have been there a very long time.

Should be a pleasant project fixing the stock damage and cleaning it up a bit. No primo restoration thoughts here. Just restore what is broken and a clean up.

That is a Gutta Percha grip cap. Clearly now a "transitional" 1891 Quality 2 gun with English 2-bar Damascus tubes (and likely an English walnut stock) with a later Fulton butt plate.

As to Dr. Drew's earlier question as to how early the bakelite dog's head insert was used on non-ejector forends, this gun would indicate that it was very early indeed (& that might be a worthy $10 investment here). It's had a hard life but has survived to this point relatively intact. Moreover, it is alot more gun than your average "field grade" Smith, much more "hand-made" than machine-made and mostly with parts sourced from England and then Syracuse, New York.

Kutter: You weren't being "weak" when you bought this one, your eyes and well-honed instincts were telling you something. One of the last of the American "small-shop" guns and well-worth salvation IMHO. Once you get it cleaned-up to your liking, a Jim Stubbendieck letter from the LC Smith archives might even be in order (this is a "graded gun" after all).

I'm curious, can you measure how much drop this gun has at heel? My early guns all have significant drop (3 1/4 to 3 1/2). Not unshootable, but I definitely have to "adapt" to them after shooting guns with more "modern" dimensions. This gun will also be fairly heavy (which I suspect they all were then).

Thank you for the info. I might just do the Letter thing

The stock is 1 3/4 drop at the comb
2 1/2 drop at the heel

Weight on a pretty reliable digital scale is 7lb 6oz.


Any thoughts why the butt stock has the extra holes in the end from a different hole spacing.
The BP seems to have been on that stock since forever

It has very nice grain in the wood and will clean up nicely I feel. No HD sanding or refinish, just a cleaning to remove some of the dried up whatever that's on it and remove the dirt.

Kutter: You're most welcome.

Nice dimensions on that gun, and very good weight. I suspect that the wood will look quite nice when you're done with it (the difference between the wood on my Quality 1 and Quality 2 is quite striking). As far as the butt plate goes...I'm guessing it was replaced at some time in it's now distant past. Gutta percha is pretty tough stuff but it's not indestructible and something has obviously happened to it... was the stock ever shortened by any chance?

It just now dawned on me (slow, I know) that you used-to work for Col. Brophy at Marlin!

Pretty neat stuff in my book. You should talk to the folks over on the LC Smith webpage (Dr. Drew?) about your experiences with Marlin. I'd bet your insights would be fascinating to at least some of them over there. You clearly have some first-hand information concerning that period of history that nobody else would be privy to.

Just a guess, but maybe your gun had the original buttplate replaced at some point due to breakage with the later style hard rubber plate with the simple incised lines. Had that been done decades ago, the present buttplate could easily look like it had always been there... until you see the second set of holes.

If you look at the two buttplate photos on Lloyds guns, the older gutta percha buttplate has hole spacings that seem located closer to the plugged hole and the unused lower hole in your stock.

Lloyds observation that your gun is a transitional gun roughly between Syracuse and Fulton production supports this theory. If Lloyd could measure the screw hole locations of his gutta percha buttplate, it might help support this thought. However, these old buttplates were apparently produced in different sizes to accommodate stocks with larger or smaller dimensions. I have several later type L.C. Smith buttplates in my odd collection of spares, but no examples of the older and more attractive gutta percha plate.

At first, I thought that a recoil pad with different hole spacing might have been installed without cutting the stock, and then the owner later decided to remove it and reinstall the hard rubber buttplate. But had that been done, the top hole likely would have been plugged with a dowel, and removing that dowel later would have left an oversize hole. After over a century, we are often left with nothing but educated or uneducated guessing.

Keith: on the subject of "small shop" guns, would the early Lefevers qualify?

The production numbers would clearly have you think that.

None of Dan Lefever's gun companies or partnerships had high production numbers. Some were very small, such as the roughly 1200 D.M. Lefever crossbolt guns produced in three cities.

The sideplate Syracuse Lefevers are interesting to me because Dan was always making changes to the design. They are not "cookies cutter" guns in the sense of most other vintage doubles. We often see barrels or components from higher grade guns on lower grade models. I think that may stem from doing whatever it took to fill an order when certain parts were in short supply. But it seems the parts substitutions were always an upgrade... never a downgrade.No doubt many differences were due to specific requests from customers. Some guns have no grade stamp, and are Special Order Guns. At the same time, we see blocks of guns of the same gauge or grade being produced, likely to be sold through retailers.

Ive said it almost seems like they were a semi-custom gunmaker, compared to most. That business model may have contributed to their demise. The many changes, differences, and low numbers can often make it challenging to find spare parts. But i'm still finding things that even the Lefever "experts" and long-time advanced collectors have never seen or noticed.

I really need to take the time to take pictures and start a new Thread on one I bought last year. It is the most unusual Lefever I've seen in 35 years of studying and collecting them.

Kutter: please do consider an article (or series of articles) for the Journal of the LCSCA
https://lcsca.clubexpress.com/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=43784&module_id=245760

And your comments would be most welcome on the Forum. Please read the header before posting and note that full names are required.
There is no registration required; just click on "Post a Message" at the top of the page.
https://members.boardhost.com/lcsmith/