doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com LC Smith SxS questions: barrel and cocking

Hello,

I have a LGS with a couple of LC Smiths that interest me. One has what is called 'london steel barrels and is probably from the 1920s. The second has something called 'nitro steel' barrels and is pre-WW I. The third is the 1947 LC Smith Field I already own, with 'Armor Steel' barrels.

Is there much of a difference in the actual quality of these barrels? Or, are they just marketing ploys?

Also, the ads for the post 1939 Field models indicate 'improved cocking' and strengthened stock.

I get that the cocking should be easier, but how was this done? I've only ever had my '47 field apart. I can't compare to other internal parts very well.

Was there more wood in the stock head, or was it just cured/prepared better?

ANy insight would be helpful. Thank you!

London Steel barrels were put on the very early No. 0 Grade and after 1912 became the Ideal Grade. The Nitro Steel barrels were put on a few grades and commonly seen on the Specialty Grade. Pre 1912 guns with Nitro Steel were the No.2 and No.3
I don't think it was a marketing ploy as these barrel cost more on each grade.
As far as the ads for post 1939 guns, the improved cocking I am not sure about, they used the same type of hardware for cocking. As to the strengthened stock, they did use a metal tube that went from the top tang screw (under the top lever) to the trigger plate housing. The screw went through this tube. This was to stop someone from overtightening the top tang screw. They also used a tube that went from side plate to side plate, this was also to stop someone from over tightening the side plate connecting screw.

This is a (cracked) pre-1913 Regular frame. The rotary bolt, the top lever spindle, the safety and the cocking cams all require removal of wood, and the width of the vertical channel for the spindle is usually larger than necessary. It is fair to say the inadequate wood surface in contact with the action is a design deficiency



At some point Hunter Arms appears to have caught on and cut a thicker stock head; a 1936 Reg. frame



Left - 1921 16g FW frame vertical head strip thickness averages .085.
Right -1942 12g FW frame Field strips average .110 thickness.



That said, fit and finish was somewhat better with pre-1913 Smiths than post-1913, and 1930s-40s Smiths. Lots of pre-1913 Smiths out there without cracks.

re: barrel steel. Crown steel was introduced for the Pigeon Grade in 1893, A1 in 1894, the No. 3 about 1895, and in 1898 the No. 2.
Nitro steel was introduced in 1898 for the No. 3 and Pigeon and later the No. 4 and No. 5.



Armor steel appeared in 1898 with the 00, and Royal steel for the F grade hammer gun in 1898. London steel was used for the No. 0 and Special steel for the No. 1 starting in 1907
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=17ixogftgITEblNUWtmFBv96ZvgjK6eFell8GsAWd-KI

I have done composition analysis and tensile testing on Armor steel barrels but for some reason no one seems to want to chop up a Nitro or Crown steel barrel for me
Scroll down about 1/2 way here
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dnRLZgcuHfx7uFOHvHCUGnGFiLiset-DTTEK8OtPYVA/edit

Oh man. I kinda puke in my mouth a little every time I see a Elsie�s stock inletting. I�ve owned a couple of them over the years...I�ve actually shot all if them pretty well too, and I like the way they look externally and some of the unique features (rod cocking, etc) but the stock design and some of the Elsie�s engineering is just rubbish :-(.

In theory some of the recoil was supposed to be absorbed by the lugs at the rear of the LCs lockplates. this probably explains the cracks behind the locks on many of these guns as a loose plate screw was bound to contribute to more problems. The extra lockplate screws on FW guns was supposed to help I guess.

If you want to see how much wood is removed from around the inletted section, look at one with a Hunter One Trigger and you will be amazed on what little wood there is.

It never occured to me that the little screws that hold the lockplates on the front of FW models had anything to do with recoil. I have been using model airplane fiberglass to reinforce the head of the stock. I also glass bed the action. If this doesn't work tighten your lockplate screws.

bill

FWIW-- I have a 12 gauge 2E made in 1911 (per Cody letter) and I had the late Brad Bachelder reinforce the stock head, and open the right side barrel from Full to Imp. Mod- I have shot a ton of birds (barn pigeons, fezzart, crows) with AA 1150 No. 7&1/2 and no cracks enywhere in the buttstock or splinter forearm- It has DT, which I prefer- Brad once told me that there was better walnut for gunstocks prior to WW1- all those 1903's and aircraft propellers used up a lot of domestic walnut from the "Show_me_State took its toll. Overtightening the lock plate machine screw is a real bit item to be vigilant about, ditto always be sure the hammers (tumblers) are fully cocked before dis-assembly into the 3 main groups. RWTF

I want to thank all of you for your information, and especially the fascinating links to data on barrel strength, plus the images to demonstrate the wooden stock differences.

One question I had about one of the pieces of advice- be sure the hammers are fully cocked before dis-assembly. Why? I have the LC Smith Hammer Cocking tool, to make recocking without the forend/barrels possible. My thought was leaving it uncocked would be more reliable, as I get it out to shoot once every year or two [a few options to rotate through, and no time for any of them].
IF I am using the LC Smith tool to recock, is there some other reason I should leave them cocked?



I really enjoyed reading the info on the different steel compositions. I just wish more people had contributed samples, to give a fuller comparison. However, I am not offering up my shotguns on the alter of scientific discovery, so I understand.

From all of the reading and comparison to what I own, it seems that the Winchester Proof Steel barrels are the strongest. However, I couldn't get a definitive sense of how to ranke the Parker Trojan [1915] vs the LC Smith Armor [1947] vs JPSauer [Spezial LuftStahl Bochumer Verein-1960?]. It seemed that it would be, in strong to less so, Bochumer LuftStahl '60, then LC Armor 1947, and then Trojan '15.

Drew- does this seem like a close ranking?

I do appreciate all the detail- this makes for more fun reading than my students' essays!