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.

While Houchin's book is a monumental work, and we owe him greatly for that, the way the layout people stretched or squeezed digital images to fit the available space on the page drives me crazy. Col. Brophy's book is easier on the visual synapses.

Interesting! I either had Brophy's book (or I got it from the library) and my memory of it was that it was poorly laid-out. I found it to be confusing, frankly. Thank-God he did write it or otherwise all of the raw paper data (from when Marlin was tearing things down at Fulton) would have been lost (if I remember all of that correctly). Perhaps I need to re-examine it?

Still snowing here this morning, so digging out will have to wait. My wife estimates that we've received at least 24-inches in the last 36-hours here.

Information on the higher grades of LC Smith guns isn't hard to find. The elaborate (& accordingly expensive) Deluxe, A-3s, Crowns, and Monograms have been well-covered, and in multiple publications over the years. Because of the number of variants produced (and with the grade name changes after the Hunter Brothers took over {from Lyman Cornelius Smith} in 1890, and then again in 1913) it can still be confusing, but because of the fanfare that usually accompanied each change of the higher-end gun model names, that is relatively easy to track. Where things become muddled is in the succession of the entry-level guns over the early years at Fulton, New York. I am open to correction here, but I have it thus: entry level for the Syracuse "Style" of Hammerless LC Smiths (produced from 1886 to ~1889) were the Quality 2 guns (priced at $80 in the late 1880s). Starting in 1890 at Fulton, the Quality 1 gun was introduced by the Hunter Brothers as their entry level model ($60), but this was a transitional gun in so-many ways. Arguably, Hunter Arms was using up actions, barrels, stocks, and other supplies brought over from the last of the guns and parts produced for assembly in Syracuse. Also, during this period (& even before in Syracuse) almost all the guns were made with braided-steel tubes. Laminated Steel, Three-Iron Damascus, Two-Iron Damascus, Single-Iron (Stub) Damascus, and Plain Twist Steel were the options. Fluid steel likely began to appear in the middle 1890s, but it was a special order item.

At sometime in 1892 (late?), the Quality 1 guns became No. 1 guns and the Syracuse "Style" of hammerless guns ended. The engraving was picked-up a little in the center of the lock-plate, but the action was flattened on the bottom (w/no bolsters) and the screw heads were also flattened (not rounded like the earlier Syracuse line of guns). The price remained at $60 ($75 w/ejectors, available for the first time). In 1895, the No. 0 Grade was introduced, with a few more changes to cut down on the amount of work (& time) invested in it's making to control costs (like one screw in the lower stock tang, not two as before). Other than some line-engraving on the lock-plates (on the very early versions) this model looked very-much like the 00 Grade and the Field Grade guns that came after it, and was priced at $47 per copy ($60 w/ejectors). This was done without much fanfare, obviously, which is interesting because the Hunter Brothers sold way-more (orders of magnitude more) of the entry-level guns than they ever did of the higher grades. Referred to as the "Regular Grade" in initial advertising, sculpting of the action became very minimalist, with no bolsters or any other embellishments. In 1898, further "refinements" were made to control costs and the 00 Grade guns were introduced at $25 a copy ($50 w/ejectors). The 00 Grade was described as the "workhorse" of the line at Fulton, produced only in 12-gauge initially. It was during this period that fluid steel became the more-common barrel material used.

In 1913, all the grades and models were renamed by Hunter Arms (the 00 Grade became the Field Grade, the 0-Grade became the Ideal Grade, the No. 1 became the Trap Grade, etc.) and several processes seem to have been changed then as well (to better suit mass-production). It has been speculated that during this period, American walnut was substituted for English walnut in the stocks of the lower-end guns. Fit and finish seems to have suffered a little as well, as compared to the earlier guns. The higher grade guns were still elaborately engraved (many were still inlaid with silver & gold) and fitted with lovely, highly-figured wood. The era of braided-steel tubes ended (in 1920) with Armour Steel and even Sir Joseph Whitworth fluid steel tubes being available in all the guns. The rest, as they say, is history, and fairly well-documented at that. Field grade guns were produced in incredible numbers, from 1913 to 1950. The base price was $25 in 1913 and $99 in 1950 (w/ejectors and other specialty items available all along the way for an additional cost). Total production for Field Grade guns is listed at 195,205 in Houchin's book.

I'd like to dedicate these little LC Smith missives of mine to Francis Marion (AKA Run-with-the Fox). You'll be missed Foxy.

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/thedailynews/name/francis-morin-obituary?id=53023005

Lloyd in your first set of 4 pictures, that is not an 1895 gun it is from after 1907. The picture showing the lock plates shows two screws in the left lock plate, that is a Featherweight frame. the picture of the bottom of receiver the through lug is shorter again that of a Featherweight frame.
All Syracuse L.C. Smith's had the squared rectangular lug and a few of the very early Fulton guns in the low 30000 serial numbers. All Syracuse guns had rounded breech balls compared to the Fulton slanted breech balls. The large convex ribs on the Syracuse guns carried over again to the very early Fulton guns and then to some that had the narrow convex ribs. Syracuse guns did not have ejectors. All barrels were different types of Damascus but none that I have seen had Laminate Steel barrels. All stocks were of European walnut. Barrels were all 30 or 32" made in 3 weight, Medium, Heavy and Extra Heavy in 10 and 12 gauge shown in catalogs of that time, but they did make a few 8 gauge hammer and hammerless guns that were not in catalogs.
Houchins did a great job on his book and had a lot of help in doing so. There are mistakes and if you have studied the Syracuse line and the early Fulton line you will be able to pick them up.
Another great book is from Dr. James Stubbendieck our Records keeper, "L.C. Smith Production Records" available through Amazon, he composed a soft cover book covering all the grades of the Fulton line and gives great detail of what was available to each gun, years made, production numbers etc,

So, did I miss that RWTF has gone ahead?
Chief

Yeah Chief, we heard yesterday from Lima Papa that Foxy had passed last September. Sad news here.

Well damn, just that. I was thinking that might be the case, he hadn't been here for awhile. A "one off" in a good way!

?????

Thanks David, yeah I did see later that the No. 1 gun pix was a featherweight (the 2nd screw on the lock-plate is pretty obvious). Mea Culpa! I got caught-up in writing all the rest of it.

The breechball differences are pretty significant as well, but the bottoms of the actions are the most visual clue (at least for me). The ribs are interesting to me as well. "Large and Convex" about covers it, and I associate it almost exclusively with Smith guns (I don't believe I've ever seen anything quite like it on other standard doubles). As far as the Laminated Steel tubes go, they're clearly listed in the early advertising for the Fulton guns but mine is the only one I've ever run across that has them, most do seem to have 2 and 3-bar Damascus. Syracuse hammerless production was really limited (way less than I would have guessed) and it really becomes a numbers game after 1913 (when you compare production from before that time to the big numbers after). My "transitional" Quality 1 gun was easily the least-produced, arguably "graded" gun, with only 3-years of production (if you ignore the very-early 3-barrel stuff) and it's no wonder I've never run-across one before. I also now see that the Quality 1 guns (with the Fulton-designed flat-bottomed actions) continued until 1895-6. As you suggest, I probably should pony-up for Mr. Stubbendieck's latest publication to further clarify my understanding of these things. My focus here was on the lower-grade guns, but I know that there were some confusing product options in the middle grades as well.

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

A recap (just for my own sanity). Entry level Smith guns from the beginning (using John Houchins 2006 LC Smith book):

For clarity, we'll ignore hammer guns and the early three-barrel guns.

LC Smith, Syracuse, New York: Quality 2 Gun, $80 (1886-1889)
LC Smith, Fulton, New York: Quality 1 Gun (Transitional), $60 (1890-1892)
LC Smith, Fulton, New York: Quality 1 Gun, 1893-1895, price on request? ($60 is mentioned elsewhere)
No. 1 Gun, 1892-1913, $60 (Houchins mentions two start dates for the No. 1 guns, 1892 and 1895). Confusing.
No. 0 Gun, 1895-1913, $47
No. 00 Gun, 1898-1913, $25
Hunter Arms Company Fulton Gun, 1915-1945, $22.85 (Not an Elsie sidelock, but a Smith doublegun all the same).

LC Smith sidelock hammerless guns started out as mostly hand-made guns in 1886 and then evolved to being almost completely mass-produced & machine-made guns (with exceptions being made for the higher grade guns) by the 1940s. These entry-level Smith guns were competing in the market with both domestic (Parker Trojans, Ithaca Flues, Fox Sterlingworths, etc.) and imported guns.

President Woodrow Wilson signed the Underwood Tariff Act in 1913 (the polar-opposite of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930), reducing import tariffs and flooding the domestic gun market with cheap European imports (this is likely what caused the Hunter Brothers to significantly modify operations at Fulton, further streamlining the mass-production component of their products).

All this begs the question... how does one differentiate a "fine" gun from a farm implement, i.e., a mere "tool", eh? Most would agree that "fine" doubleguns are largely handmade (with exceptions now for modern CNC technology being used to streamline production at even the most prestigious English gun firms). But...how is that so different from what Hunter Arms did in 1913?

Good points Lloyd. According to the great ? Dewey Vicnair all L.C. Smith's were farm implement tools. I guess it is because they didn't have intercepting sears and other things that he brought up which I and many don't agree with and that I can't remember.
I think you have to go back to when John Hunter first bought L.C. Smith in 1888-89, those guns from Syracuse were all hand done with machine parts, as guns all over were made. It is what went into them that sets them apart. L.C. Smith hired the best engravers that also did work for other gun manufactures and you can see this by the engraving they did. They had brokers going overseas looking for the best walnut for stocks. The early Hunter Arms L.C. Smith's show this until around 1914-1918 when the war changed most manufacturing.
You can read most of this in the book.

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!

Marks21:

You don't have to agree with any of it, as it's not an "all or nothing" situation. The change-over from hand-made to machine-made didnt't happen overnight, it was a gradual process that likely took a slow and winding road to finally evolve. There was no "internet" then and they weren't dealing with "Gen-X" workers. I'd guess that as skilled workers aged-out, processes changed as newer (and younger) folks took their places at the bench. The big shift really didn't seem to occur until after the 1913 event, and even then it would have taken some time to impliment. And, while you're right about the low-percentage of Graded or higher-end guns being produced, that doesn't mean they had to stop using the better or more-proper processes on the more-expensive guns. Modern firearms manufacturers have "custom shops" and I'm guessing that the folks at Fulton did as well. I'd also bet that they did as good a job as they could until the older "talent" was no-longer available. I've seen some post-13 graded Smiths that were still pretty impressive. The Field grade guns might have suffered from the mass-production process a bit earlier, but even in the Field grades that I've seen & handled, there are some pretty decent examples & they're out there still, even from the later years.

Mark's it's raining.
After 1912 when the numbered guns (except Deluxe and Monogram) were changed to noun grades like the 00,0 to Filed Grade and Ideal Grade and when they started making box lock guns was because in order to stay in business they had to make lower graded guns to keep up with the market. You still see very few of the other mass produced guns, but in my opinion you see more low end graded Smith's still working fine because they were still hand fitted and all removeable parts were serial numbered to make sure they fit that gun when assembled.
Say what you want.

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

Bill Mazeroski's game-ending homer in the 9th inning of game 7 at Forbes Field was indeed pretty spectacular. Growing up a few hours north of Pittsburgh had me seeing that footage being replayed throughout all my early years in Pennsylvania. When the City of Pittsburgh tore down Forbes Field (to replace it with Three-Rivers Stadium in the early 1970s) they re-developed the site of the former ballpark (into a shopping mall, of all things!) but....they preserved that section of the left-field wall (where his homer went over it) as a shrine to that fateful day in 1960. Three-Rivers Stadium is now gone as well, replaced by yet-another monstrous edifice. I haven't been there in over 30-years, but I'd like think that the little piece of Mazeroski's wall is still there.

Back to the topic at hand...





I must confess that I shamelessly "snipped" these lovely photographic examples from the LC Smith webpage. Further, I must give credit here to J. David Williamson for these clear & lovely examples (of the early products of the LC Smith capitalist enterprise). Mr. Williamson mentioned the difference between the breechballs in the pre & post Fulton era guns earlier here, and I couldn't find a good example to illustrate that point until... this was just re-posted over on the Elsie site (by our good Dr. Drew BTW). The bottom photograph nicely details the differences in the bolsters on the bottoms on the actions as well. The 1890 Quality 1 Fulton-era photography I snipped and posted here earlier looks almost exactly like the Syracuse example shown on the bottom photograph (both have that square barrel lug), and my 1891 Quality 1 gun is shaped almost identically to the Fulton gun shown there as well (with the rounded barrel lug). I suspect that the bottom gun (identified here as circa 1896) is actually an earlier example than the date listed.

You know, I've handled and even measured a number of British "Bests"" over the years and they were (and are) truly-lovely guns (Purdey, Boss, Holland & Holland, etc.) but...I've never been much-tempted to actually pony-up the price-of-admission for such a gun (and it is unlikely now that my circumstances will ever allow me to go down that path). I would, however, be sorely tempted by an American "Best" gun now, such as a Syracuse Era LC Smith. These guns have been something of a revelation for me, I must confess (yet again). It's been fun learning about them.

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

My Alma Mater! The campus has clearly expanded a bit (there wasn't anything like that when I was running around down there in the early 1980s). I'm glad to hear that they've preserved all that.

It's an illness (forgive me Ted!):










first year Fulton Gun (189i0)


A 1st year Fulton gun (1890) Quality 2, coming from Kodiak, Alaska of all places! I would never of had the moxy to purchase such a gun online, except that after re-doing that 1891 Quality 1 gun I knew exactly what I was looking at. Sold some old (& lately-unused) 1930s bamboo fly fishing tackle to do it. It's not a Syracuse gun (which is what I really wanted), but it's darn close. Anybody need a freshly-restored Quality 1 gun (they're dimensionally identical, even the chokes)? Hope to have it in time for Whittington.

America's Best? I guess I'm about to find out.

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

I wonder what the Captain would say about the quality of rotary bolt fasteners 95 years down the road when the single bolt Parkers were still tight, as tight as rotary bolt guns.

Having been away from rotary-bolt guns for a very long time now, I can tell you that the sound of a Smith closing still reminds me of a bank vault slamming shut. Other single-bite systems seem to have survived down through the years (Westley Richards comes to mind as well) but none are so "positive" (for lack of a better description). Perhaps not as refined as a Purdey double-underbite but clearly, as effective. Alex Brown's design has inarguably withstood the test of time.

This Quality 2 gun is supposed to get here by 9pm this evening (according to the USPS). Not exactly sure how that works but I'll be puttering around the place all day in anticipation.

It made it by noon, thankfully.







The differences 1 year and 1 grade level makes (1890 to 1891) eh? The shape of the bottom of the action is still nicely carried back into the wood at the head of the stock (although less-so in '91). Also, besides the square-to-rounded barrel lug and the slightly thinner cross-section on the earlier gun, the geometry of the entire action changed from Syracuse to the Fulton variant, note the position of the screw in front of the trigger guard on the '91 gun. Moreover, better wood on the Quality 2 (& with a capped grip!). A little more of the "gunmaker's art" here really makes a big difference in the overall appearance (at least for me). The post 1913 guns had none of that in the lower grades. Completely cookie-cutter towards the end of things.

This Quality 2 gun should clean up quite nicely, although it's been shot way-more than the Quality 1 gun has (one's been carried more, the other has been shot more). The tubes are quite different as well, 3-bar good Damascus (confirmed by Dr. Drew) versus the "Angularly-Laminated" steel of the '91 gun. This tubeset still weighs over 4lbs and measures 30-inches exactly, choked .022 and .027 (Mod & Imp. Mod). Thinnest point in the tubes was .035 (the average overall thickness was confirmed at being well over that, closer to 40 thou).

The things one learns from these old guns....



This buttplate and grip cap are "Gutta Percha" which is the material used for everything from golf balls & pistol grips to cameo jewellery (& even decorative wall-paneling) before the advent of Bakelite in 1909. Made from a Malaysian rubber-tree sap and baked in a mold. The Brits mostly used horn in this application (which would be preferable to me as well) but here in America we were much-more "forward-thinking" and this is what we came up with. Surprisingly durable, considering this example is a well-used 134-year old field gun.

I guess "playing with plastic" has been going on in this country for some time now, eh?