doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Lefever Arms Co sxs

The Ithaca assembled guns have less precise fitting and also the stocks are just not a slim as the earlier Lefevers. You know one when you see it is the best explanation I can give you. Without factory records it comes down to a matter of opinions about what and when things were made and by whom. The later guns are a drop off in quality for sure.

Perhaps we just need to disagree on this one because Lefever owners tend to have very strong views of what they know and believe. I have only spent about ten years learning about Lefevers so make no claim as to being an expert, but some here have spent four or five decades and I defer to their viewpoints. I do think Dr. Bob is right in why the Durstons sold Lefever to Ithaca. Again I wonder if any inventory of stock and parts on hand was ever recorded at the time of sale? treasure beyond count that list may be if ever found. Perhaps some agreement was filed with the State of NY at the time of sale so the state could get their taxes from the sale of Lefever. Even then states ran on paper and taxes.

Unless someone can point to any specific Ithaca assembly features, I think that Keith's theory that this may be more of a prototype I grade is more plausible. As a prototype the gun could have had the doll's head just like the other Lefever grades before the later I's and then DS Lefevers went to a slotted rib.

Keith;
My G @ SN 29,418 has the externally slotted sear adjustment screw. My question to you is What Evidence do you have that it should not have this screw. Where is it written in stone that this should only be on an E grade or higher gun? My best thoughts on the issue is that whether the screw was adjusted from the inside or outside was a time frame thing & the discontinuance of the screw on grades lower than E was a cost cutting feature on the lower grades which came about at some point in time. I would feel it likely that the side plates were probably made in larger batches than were frames & barrels so it would certainly be conceivable that an earlier plate was in inventory & used at a date after the screw had essentially been eliminated. This would not in & of itself necessarily prove it was a plate from a higher grade gun.
My 38,025 FE has chain damascus barrels which also have an E on them. This was my very first Lefever & at the time I just assumed the E was for the ejectors. Eventually I would learn it was not normal practise to stamp ejector barrels with an E. As chain damascus was I believe more commonly used on E grades than F grades, quite possibly this gun's barrels were considered E grade barrels.

Miller has reminded us that E marks on F grade guns were rather common.

Keith, I stand corrected concerning the location of the Ithaca assembly of the Lefever Guns. I found this article in the Syracuse newspaper. Although I don't have the date it is quite clear from the context that the move was made shortly after the sale in 1916.
[img:center][/img]

We certainly do not know how many guns Ithaca assembled. Based on Bob Elliott's number projections the annual production by the Lefever Arms Co. from 1910 to 1914 was a little less than 2,000 guns per year. I doubt that the total production by Ithaca exceeded 1 year's production by the LAC. Even if they only assembled 1,000 guns that would make them as common as Dan Lefever's crossbolt guns. Quite clearly some assembled by Ithaca are labeled Syracuse, NY. Whether this was because they were already stamped or done deliberately by Ithaca will never be known.

The argument I have against the "prototype" theory for the gun in question is why the LAC would choose to basically discount an H grade gun by simply marking it I grade. On the other hand, I have no explanation of why the serial number is so low as compared to other known Ithaca guns.

It would help if the original poster would publish photos of the underside of the barrels. Sometimes, but not always, Ithaca has unique markings on the barrels that identify them as having been assembled by Ithaca.

Bob, We still hear that Lefever was sold to Ithaca. I'm sure that I read 25-30 years ago that it was sold to a group of 3 people at 10:00 in the A M and they sold it to Ithaca in the afternoon. Was Mr Harvey J McMurchy one of the 3? and what was his relationship with Ithaca?

According to Walter Snyder, in his Ithaca Gun Co. book, the sale of The Lefever Arms Co. to The Ithaca Gun Co. was indeed accomplished through a straw purchase. The individuals who purchased the LAC were Charles Rinehart, Howard Cobb, and Nelson Genung. They were close friends if the Smiths and Livermores of the Ithaca Gun Co. The sale took place a week later.
I don't know who Harvey McMurchy was or if he was at all involved.

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.

Keith, I highly doubt that the Ithaca production numbers equaled those of the 1910-1914 LAC production. Even if they reached half, that would be 3000 guns which would make them almost 3X more common than crossbolts. In addition I think that a higher percentage of the Ithaca assembled guns were lower grade, but that is just an observation from those that I have seen that were definitely Ithacas. I have examined some high grade guns that were marked Ithaca. Some are high quality and some had really shoddy engraving for a high grade gun. They had to resort to heavy discounting near the end to move the last of the inventory.

I do believe that the I and DS grades contributed to Uncle Dan's departure. I have the distinct feeling that he was similarly opposed to the 0 Excelsior grade crossbolt that was introduced in the last years of the DM Lefever Co. in Ohio.

I don't have personal access to the current numbers list and am too lazy to collect my own. I cannot verify what percentage of guns appear to be out of sequence because of features that had been introduced at lower serial numbers and replaced those present on a higher serial number gun. We don't fully understand how the production ran. Were batches of frames milled, serial numbered and graded, then stored for future use? I wish I knew.

I don't know that it has any bearing on the discussion of this I grade, but Lefever Arms Co. was not sold to Ithaca directly or through a straw. Instead my understanding is that LACo sold its gun related assets to Ithaca and the Lefever Arms corporation continued under Durston ownership as the Durston Gear Corporation. Does anyone have any more specific facts, documents or articles from the press on this?