doublegunshop.com - home Forums Thread Like Summary - pre & post Fulton Smith guns (photo rich)

Snowed in here today. We are supposed to get almost 20-inches at this rate (if it keeps going until tomorrow morning)...



So... I'm stuck at home today. My 23-year old 4x4 Dodge truck is at the shop (typical old vehicle problems, it's a shame I'm so cheap) and what I have left to drive is no-match for anything like this. Accordingly, I decided to read-up on a few things...



This book is out of print now and while never cheap, copies of it are still prohibitively expensive (IMHO) for the average Joe ($350 per copy?). I finally found my somewhat-foxed (w/a slight tear on the back of the cover) copy in the "used" book world for significantly less than that, but... unless someone is really motivated to study these guns, it's unlikely that many folks are buying the presently available "uncirculated" versions at that price. This effectively keeps the better information about these guns out of the usual gun-crowd hands. Hopefully I'm not violating anything by posting these photographic excerpts, but here we go:



Above is an circa 1895 Grade 1 LC Smith. Pay close attention to the shape of the bottom of the receiver, the single screw in the trigger-guard and the flattened screwheads (Syracuse & transitional guns have two screws on their lower tangs).



This is likely to be an early 1892 Quality 2 gun that looks strikingly like my late '91 Quality 1 gun. Compare it to the 1895 Grade 1 gun above. Note the shape of the bolsters on bottom of the receiver (what gorgeous case colors remaining(!), I wish my gun looked half this good) but even by '92 the screw head on the lock-plate appears to have been flattened. In Houchin's book, the transitional guns are counted in with the Syracuse production numbers (up until 1892). Production at Fulton begins in 1890, making for 3-years of transitional-gun production there ('90, '91 & '92).






My 1891 Quality 1 gun (above) at the range yesterday. Note the two rounded screws in the trigger-guard. Quality 1 guns were never made in Syracuse, only at Fulton. Quality 2 was the entry-level for Syracuse guns in those days. I have, however, seen an exceedingly-plain Quality 2 action that perhaps hints at what was to come...





I believe this above gun was dated (by serial number) to be 1888 or '89? (all the current owner has now is the stripped action, as he parted the rest of the gun out). Below is photography I "snipped" from an online advert for an 1890 Quality 1 gun:





Note the square barrel lug and the clearly pronounced bolsters on the bottom of the frame (all the Syracuse guns had that square lug). By 1891, however, the barrel lug had been rounded at the front. The basic line engraving pattern on this action is exactly the same as that 1889 Syracuse "mystery" action and...on my 1891 gun, but this one has/had "Twist" barrels (and a badly cracked stock, with what looks to be a replacement forend).

What we're all used-to (well, most of us anyway, and in a much more-worn condition)...

[img]http://i.imgur.com/cdqNE1Eh.jpg[/img]

(why the above photograph won't display properly is beyond me).


Deep into the "weeds", I know. More to follow.

I have to respectfully disagree to this entire concept. Smith cranked these guns out the same way “they” mass produced the typewriter and Henry Ford did Model Ts.
The highest grades were CERTAINLY works of art but that is less than 1% of the 1% and ignorant to apply that glory to the entire line. The 1,2, and 3 grade guns with their simple and shallow engraving might as well have been roll stamped.
I’m a poor boy from a blue collar town and I love a Grade 2 LC Smith without shame, but don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining!

I know I’m pushing buttons— I will say I don’t profess any of it absolute. There is no doubt these guns have lasted 100+ years and many could still out last me or “ya’ll” and shoot untold thousands of rounds. I have no doubt that skill level and work ethic has declined every decade since these factories opened their doors. Find the man who will find Garcia! Bear in mind that letter itself was written in 1898/1899 (iirc) But remember without a doubt, it was a factory- pictured right on the letterhead, and it’s a typewriter, or a Model T, or a coffee grinder. There’s no shame in that. It sustained production for 70 ish years? The guns themselves lasting over 100. There are no doubt gems of the bunch. There were no doubt items “built on a Friday.”
If you want innovation, design, or evolution: D. Lefever, F Hollenbeck, F Lefever. L.C. Smith was business, Hunter was business. I have no doubt they tried to buy the best. I think it a bold claim to think that is always for sale or truly confined to one business. I mean L.C. Smith was not the New York Yankees even if Ruth owned one!
(1960 still the best World Series BTW)

I’m going to catch with my kids

He had a unique and steady take on things Stanton, I enjoyed his presence here. He is missed. He should have his own thread.

Not to derail LLoyd's thread, who else lately?

Chief

The wall is still there and the home plate still rests, under glass -supposedly in its original location, in the floor of one of the halls of the University of Pittsburgh.

Home plate at PittHome plate at Pitt

Fellows, Reading this thread reminded of something I read in ' Modern Shotguns and Loads' by Capt. Charles Askins(1929). He queried the major American double gun companies about the amount of handwork they put into their models, to wit, the Hunter Arms Co. stated that handwork on their models anounts to between 40 and 80 percent of the entire cost; Parker from 60% in the lower grades to as high as 90% in the higher grades; A.H. Fox said 70% for the cheaper grades up to 95% for the highest grades, such a gun being almost entirely handmade. Regarding the Smith gun, his personal opinion was that the rotary top bolt was the best fastener for a doublegun yet devised. I have never seen this information in any other publication. It makes you understand why these companies could not remain in business after WW2. Regards, Sandlapper