Hi all, just throwing this out for discussion. I'm not into American classic SxS (yet!!) but I was wondering if one were to look into getting one. What are the merits and shortcomings of the following makers/models in 16ga:

A.H. Fox, AE Grade

L.C. Smith, Ideal Grade (with ejectors)

Parker, VHE

Thanks for your comments!!!

All the best!

Greg

Not modern stock dimensions. The Parkers are an unnecessarily complicated design. All should be glass bedded if using the original wood. When a picture of a blown up gun appears here, or, elsewhere, it strange how often they show early Fox guns.
Using old doubles as high volume shooters is a bit problematic, in my experience. Imagine using a 1948 Ford for daily transport, and you are on the right track. Lots of fun, but, keep it limited in use.
Best,
Ted

Maybe they don't get "classic" status, but two of the most useful are the NID and the M-21.

gjw, what are you intending to use the gun for?

tim

The Remington 1894 & 1900 model SxSs should also be considered American classics. Because Remington made a lot of mass produced pumps and auto loaders, their fine quality doubles have been overlooked by many. The 1894 & 1900 exhibited fine workmanship and fleet design.

From a European perspective, of course, the LC Smith is the preeminent American classic because of its sidelock mechanism. On the other side of the pond sidelocks are considered to be in an entirely different and superior class from boxlocks.

J.K.B. von Falkenhorst

"From a European perspective, of course, the LC Smith is the preeminent American classic because of its sidelock mechanism"

Of course Not bad for an "agricultural non-entity"

well you forgot the best of the best.........LEFEVER!

Let's make it apples to apples- of the American boxlocks made prior to 1930 (Depression era Kick-Off date) I would take a early AE Fox- with 28" Krupp barrels- straight hand stock with double triggers choked imp. cyl. right- imp. mod. left and with 2.75" chambers (even though 16 gauge shells were 2 & 9/16" then, I'm planning ahead) and I would have a fine upland bird gun, albiet in the "bastard gauge" that weighed aprox. the same as a 20-

If we are staying with boxlocks post 1930- same exact specs. but in a Winchester Model 21 (which will be a tad heavier than the Fox-but will last forever), or a Ithaca NID- prefer later series w/o the "snail ears" cocking indicators- If we are comparing sidelocks, there is no comparison- the L.C. Smiths rule that roost-Bakers were a "flash in the pan" and the Uncle Dan LeFever Syracuse sideplated graded guns were in a class by themselves--

Parkers are overrated, albiet IMO, as the early ones with the 18 pc.action design and before the 12.5% tool steel bolt plate are complicated, ejectors get out of whack-and production control with so many frame sizes and gauges that over-lapped those frames- sure kept the shiny-assed seat of the pants office clerks busy with their ledgers- Now, as I don't own, nor plan to-any 16 gauge, why make that choice over a light 12 bore- where I live and shoot, the 16 gauge shells are at a premium (as are the 18 gauges)?? Just curious, like all foxes apparently.

Falkenhorst,

So you're saying "across the pond" they'd think more of a Crescent than a high grade Parker? American guns are not well thought of over there no matter what name is on them.

Destry

Not impressed with Baker guns either Destry

Ted, what purpose would be served by "glass bedding" a sxs shotgun?

Dean

It's a 'Long Cracked Smith' thing Dean
http://www.picturetrail.com/sfx/album/view/17090409
http://www.picturetrail.com/sfx/album/view/20576154

My go to, high volume shooting gun has been a Sterlingworth.
Duck I go M21.

Many of the American "classic" 16's had 2 9/16 or shorter chambers. I have owned and tinkered with both Parker & Fox with short chambers. Bought and reloaded short shells. Lenghtened FC's and shot 2 3/4" "game loads", not Mags. As nice as these older guns are, I have concluded I would rather shoot & hunt a gun I trust to handle a Super X or Federal Premium 16ga load rather than some obscure second tier "low pressure" shell made by "XYZ Inc." I shoot to break targets and hunt to kill birds, not carry around some worn out, obsolete shotgun.

Rev,
Is that a "hammerless" LC lock?

Forgive my lack of background on this, please......but I thought the Smiths were not full "sidelocks"..and perhaps your example is not, but the pic sure looks like one?

Best,
Mark

Yes Mark, and they are true sidelocks. An agricultural grade lock courtesy of JDW

DearTed Schefelbein; with all respect due you seem to have hard on feelings for fox guns. You say whne pictues of blown guns are posted they usualy are fox guns. I ask, please let us know which postings you have in data, or please use search function here and let us know dates and topics. Thank you for xtra data to backup your statement. CB

Can't speak for Destry, but IMO those two "dudes" look like extras for the movie based on F. Scott Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby"--but then, I re-read my 1904 repro L.C. Smith catalogue, and talk about Dapper- almost all the gents shown were wearing hats and ties, regardless of which grade of "Elsie" they were holding. The Remington boxlocks went "South" about the same time Baker folded their tents, but if I read his bio correctly in SC, Edmund Osthaus owned and shot two ejector grade Remington doubles. All these answers to the initial question posed are really a very interesting Koan- to use a Hindu term- meaning a question that cannot be logically answered or explained. I like pre-1913 ejector 12 gauge L.C. Smiths with either 30 or 32 inch steel barrels snugly choked- because they perform well for me consistently, are more affordable in my area than Parkers or AH Foxes or Model 21's, and by staying with 12 gauges, avoid the old supply/demand ratio that makes 10 gauge-20-28 and the ridiculous .410 fetch more in the same grade and condition as your good old plain vanilla 12 bore- and I don't get raped at the GM or Cabela's stores when I buy 12 ga. shells, like they do when you want 16-28 or .410. To each his own!!

I just picked up my "new" Lefever 16 g H grade today. Can't wait to shoot it, but with mirror bores and Lefever's built in compensation system along with the balance of this gun, I would put it up with the best of them.

I always thought Parker handled their marketing very poorly with slogans that touted the balance, handling, or reliability of their guns. They could have simply settled on one slogan and it would have lasted even through modern times.

"It's lonely at the top".

In my 50 years of shooting,collecting,testing handling and yes inadvertently abusing doubles I have yet to see a "blown up Fox". My 1923 example had cases of Super Xs and some really nasty handloads run through it before I knew any better. So in this time I have seen nada,nary a one,not a single example of a blown up Fox. Perhaps you could post some pictures of examples here and enlighten me?
Jim

Crossed Chisels, where are you? I can swear that when I was in yuor shop (a while ago) you have a FOX 12 that had a burst chamber area. But I dont think it had a cracked frame.
Can you weigh in on this

revdocdrew:

I believe I recognize that picture.

Hack

Baker. Chamber had been honed.


LC Smith. Obvious barrel obstruction.


Fox.


Another Fox.






Over the years, I keep hearing the "common wisdom" that the Flues is prone to cracking. I have never personally seen a cracked Flues or a picture of one.

Pete

Pete:

I owned a Flues 5e sn 1762xx that had a cracked frame.

Hack

Talking about over the pond, I was at Bonham's in London last month for a morning-look before the sale. There were lots of wonderful guns. It may be a cultural thing---culture being what we do---but I left more satisfied than ever with what I have at home. There wasn't one I'd buy if my pockets were full. There's a lot of snobbery, vanity and conceit in everything we do, too much of we are what we own. I wondered at Bonham's if most members here felt as I did: great guns and reasonably priced, light weight for the field mostly, many suprisingly to me with Cylinder right barrels but hunting wouldn't be the same without those great hardware store guns of our own.

More of Hack's Premier



AH Fox HE Becker bored 2 3/4" chambers, after abundant 3" magnum loads courtesy of cc/dt



Hollenbeck Syracuse



Flues

The Premier & I are about to leave for the Southern Side by Side Classic at Deep River, NC.

Hack

Dean. Ok. What is gained by glass bedding a SXS stock is full contact between the wood and the metal parts, to allow for whatever shrinkage or other changes have happened over the years to the wood. Wood, over time, is often not dimensionally stable. Factor in a drop of oil here, or a loose screw there, and you can be rewarded with the pin we so often see at the head of a Parker stock, or the cracks behind the lockplates of an LC Smith.

I double dog dare anyone to tell me, here, in public, they have never seen cracks behind the lockplates of an LC Smith, or a pinned Parker.

Cherry bomb, Italian SXS-There was a time when the Rev, or others, had a modest collection of blown up Fox pictures at hand. I didn't save them, because I don't give a rip, not ever having owned one, and with no desire to do so. This isn't because I believe them to be inferior to any other period design. I would guess that the examples we have seen (and, there have been quite a few blown up Fox guns here, and elsewhere, over the years, don't kid yourself) have been abused, either by owners with limited understanding of the guns limitations, (Burt Becker's use of them for his waterfowling ideas may burden every single Fox ever built with a reputation for indestructability, acted out on by past owners) or by gunsmiths (I'm thinking of one right now, who's nickname is "The Torch") who favor the Fox design for re-sale, after working their "magic" upon it.

I triple dog dare anyone to repeat that they have never seen a blown up Fox, here, in public.

I have a lone, turn of the century double in my gunsafe-a Tobin, a gun that I believe has a built in manufacturing flaw that leaves it especially vulnerable to being damaged by high pressure ammunition. I respect this, and subject the gun only to occasional use with English CIP rated 2 1/2 inch ammunition.
In my case, one antique gun design is enough, and the remainder are all suitable for shooting whatever ammunition is available. I wouldn't treat a Fox, LC Smith, or Parker any different than I treat my Tobin. The hassle and expense of keeping a bunch of old stuff working in a disposable society isn't worth it, to me. Hence, my one and only one philosophy. I still have the only one on the block, and that won't change anytime soon.
You can use your Fox however you see fit. I'd humbly suggest you not duplicate Burt Beckers use, or loads, with any Fox, but, again, do as you see fit. I hope never to see it in a full color destruction photo, here.
Best,
Ted

Ted, and there are those who shoot more through those old doubles in a month than some of us, hunting actively yearly, would in a lifetime.

Thanks Ted. I suspected that was what you meant but I wanted a little more - and got it. I partially agree with you but I don't believe all old side-by-side shotguns should be glass bedded. I think it depends, as you say, on the condition of the wood at the head of the stock and certainly on how the owner intends to use (or abuse) his shotgun. I don't own any that I would hesitate to shoot because the wood might be questionable nor would I ever use any ammo that might stress my guns in any way. Thank you again, Dean

I've never seen a pinned Parker that wasn't abused first.

Let's not forget, Parkers were made in a day and age when the user of a product still had some responsibility. Things had not been made idiot proof as they often are today. I can't blame Parker for assuming their customers were not idiots.

I'd much rather have a 1910 Parker with smooth barrels - the way God intended - than a modern gun with the obligatory safety warning stamped on the outside of the barrels.

I have to admit to having a real warm spot for the Baker graded guns.

I have the three 16 gauge makes and models you listed and in my opinion i would pick the 16 ga A grade Fox. Not a better or sleeker looking or handling American 16 side by side has been made than the Fox. I have 0 frame Parker and it has larger frame than the Fox.Smith fw has a very nice small size frame also. Parker probably better workmanship but not design. Just my opinion and i love them all! Bobby

Quote from Ted:
"Cherry bomb, Italian SXS-There was a time when the Rev, or others, had a modest collection of blown up Fox pictures at hand. I didn't save them, because I don't give a rip, not ever having owned one, and with no desire to do so. This isn't because I believe them to be inferior to any other period design. I would guess that the examples we have seen (and, there have been quite a few blown up Fox guns here, and elsewhere, over the years, don't kid yourself) have been abused, either by owners with limited understanding of the guns limitations, (Burt Becker's use of them for his waterfowling ideas may burden every single Fox ever built with a reputation for indestructability, acted out on by past owners) or by gunsmiths (I'm thinking of one right now, who's nickname is "The Torch") who favor the Fox design for re-sale, after working their "magic" upon it."

Ok Ted:
I now see where your coming from here. I am well aware of the cracked frame problem, but in all honesty, I have never seen a Fox with a destroyed barrel that wasn't obviously due to an obstruction. I have recounted in prior threads the use/abuse I subjected my own Fox to over the years before I knew any better.
The fact that mine is still tight and onface is to me a tribute to the strength and integrity in its design and construction. I personaly think it's the strongest American double ever made after the Winchester Model 21.
I own several more expensive and sophisticated guns today but this Fox will always occupy a special place because it never let me down.
Jim

Italina SXS,
You are wrong. It might be third, but, it is far less the gun than any NID. Note, significantly, that Olin avoided the model 21, and the gun that first used the 3 1/2 magnum shell was the NID.

That wasn't an accident.

If you want to talk looks, you will get no argument from me that it is superior to a model 21 or a NID. But, I've seen precious few of those two, or documentation of same, illustrating 21s or NIDs that have been injured, frame or barrels, either due to abuse or stupidity. That isn't an accident, either. The early 21 has a defect that effects the rib and foreend lug, but, it is hard to hurt the steel in the barrels.


Best,
Ted

Well Ted:
I let it go at this. I expect most opinions including my own are based upon our own personal experiences. I am wrong? Can you point me to a statistically valid longitudinal study comparing the two makes that substantiates this? I have never owned a NID as I can't get past the looks.It may be sturdy but so is a plough horse. I'll take a quarter horse or arab for pleasure riding each and every time.
Jim

O.K., I'll put my 2 cents worth in, I have an A grade Baker with damascus barrels I shoot once or twice a year at quail,with light loads,and it's a wonderful gun. I also have some Foxes, L.C. Smiths, Ithacas and a couple English doubles and the Baker will stand up to them all. My A grade is very well made. But then again, each to his own!

I recall just one instance of a posting of a cracked frame Fox since I've been a member of this forum--which has got to be close to 10 years. Has there been more than this one reported?

I shoot old guns for all my hunting, I sold off all my modern crap and never looked back. Sure they take a little work to keep in the field but it's worth it.

I've cracked a stock or two with duck and goose loads it's true. But they fix pretty easy and are just as strong or stronger once they're repaired.

Destry

PeteM has posted TWO photos of cracked Fox guns IN THIS POST. There is also a Rev post of carnage to a Becker magnum on the same page.

Pay attention!

"All lies and jest, still a man hears, what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest,"
Simon and Garfunkel, "The Boxer", 1969-or, today, it would seem.

Best,
Ted

Get into the groove, boy
you've got to prove your love to me

Madonna, 1988

Hi Ted,

All of those images have been posted here over the years. I am glad CC sent a picture of the Flues. It will go into my collection.

All this talk of Fox... I own several, including a Philadelphia Arms Fox. I would have purchased a Balitmore Fox recently, but decided to spend the money on a stock for a Fox in need... People seem to forget that Fox covers 40 years of production. Fox did produce a gun designed for 3" shells.
http://foxcollectors.com/sw%20waterfowl%20grade.htm

Pete

Only Parkers can command the cash they do at the checkout counter.
Hard to argue with the deep pockets set!

Best song Simon and Garfunkel ever wrote and performed. Rumor has it that "The Boxer" was possibly Bob Dylan, an iconoclastic figure in the music world. I owned a Fox HE 12- 32" barrels 3" chambers with the oft-misread "Barrels Not Guaranteed" stamping on the flat(s) BUT I never shot 3 inch shells in it. It has been replaced by an older L.C. Smith 2E 12- also 32" Nitro barrels with original factory ventilated rib, and although NOT a longrange model (I have one 'in the wings'" however) it has 3" chambers- originally a 30" Chain Damascus gun built about 1898, sent to Fulton and refitted with the Nitro barrels. I also have two other pre-1913 12 gauge Smiths- a Grade 2 mfg. 1907 and a 3E 12 ga. mfg. 1909. NONE of these older "Elsies" have any cracks in the stock heads, at either lock plate area, or the tangs, and they have been shot a fair amount- But in looking over area shotguns for sale, I see later Smiths with that problem. Why? possibly over-oiling and storing the gun muzzles up-allowing the oil to weaken the pores of the wood at the stock head. Also, as Mike McIntosh mentions in his 1989 "Best Guns" book- early Smiths had finer engraving for grade and filing and shaping of the lockplates- possibly a slight beveled mortise that was eliminated to cut labor costs- I strip and clean the Smiths-removing the lock plates to clean and lube same (light Rem-Oil) and I use a Q-tip and apply a very light coat of Tru-Oil to the inletted wood areas, then re-assemble. I use 2.75" Classic Doubles Non-Toxic shells in the Smiths for waterfowling, I also have two older Model 12 Heavy Duck pumpguns and a "POS" if I can borrow from Destry's term here- Mossberg 835 Ulti-Mag- and all I shoot in those cannons is 2.75" steel shot (usually Kent or Federal)- BUT I only shoot greenheads and Canadas on private farms or rivers in my area, not on Federal reserves or Public areas- and I take my birds in close-how close- I like to count the eyelets in their boots before I shoot- and my shotshell budget goes further by sticking with the std. loads. I have never heard of a AH Fox, whether a Sterlingworth or a Burt Becker "Bo Whoop" with a cracked frame or the rib extension damaged (as per the fotos)-my HE was breeched so tightly that once fired 12 AA reloads- I could not close the breech- the lever would stick to the right of the tang- only with factory new shells would that Cannon close properly-I like Smiths because in my area they are affordable, but if I had access to Bernie Madoff's Swiss bank accounts, I would 10 times rather have a High Graded 12 gauge ejector Fox made before 1916 with Krupp barrels than any other American boxlock of that same era. But name association and what the market will bear prevails- the Parker "mystique" exists, always has, always will- go to a music store in any major city and price a used Steinway Grand against a Baldwin or a Yamaha- all have 55 white keys, 33 black and three pedals and a black top you prop open- but the name Steinway says it all- ditto Parker--

Quote:
"I would 10 times rather have a High Graded 12 gauge ejector Fox made before 1916 with Krupp barrels than any other American boxlock of that same era."

Hey RWTF:
I have a Fox AE 12 ga with 30" barrels that was made in 1908. I expect you'd prefer a higher grade but this ones internals are the same as the fancier models and it has never broken down on me either.
BTW: I suspect those cracked frames shown earlier were the result of bad heat treatment. It would be interesting to have the serial numbers to see if they fit into a pattern.
Jim

Or, guys using the torch method to spruce up those faded case colors. There was a time when that was TAUGHT at gunsmithing schools in the US.

It isn't, anymore.
Best,
Ted

My "go to" or "el numero uno" has been a CE 16 gauge A H Fox with 28 inch barrels. I had it re-stocked with a treble-grip, the wood is very nice and has a redish tint and it balances like an English make. It's smoke'n hot.

tim

Sounds like a fine gun Jim. Here's a strange one-Fox wise- a hunting/shooting pal for many years, now a retired Probate Judge, bought from an estate a Fox 12 BE with Krupp barrels-DT,AE fine gun- a tad heavy, but here's the strange thing-at least to me- the barrels measure an even 29.50"- dead nuts-not 30"- no sign of them ever being cut- no "tell-tale" hacksaw teeth marks in the solder, or ribs- and it checks out IMP. Mod. right and Full left with my choke gauge and my chamber depth gauge reads 2.880"- and it patterns tightly, shoots to POA on pattern sheets with about 60-65% of the known pellet count above the barrels (when fired like a rifle at a center aiming point) and will pattern evenly with both 1.125 oz and 1.250 oz. loads of lead: 4-5-6 and with 7.5 Champion paper Trap loads, patterns almost as tightly as the big 12 HE I once owned, shot with the same exact load-Yet my former HE was made aprox. 1926-27 and had Chromox Steel barrels, not Krupp--The only minor flaw I have ever read about the Fox guns was the very minor point about not having rebounding hammers- no big deal.. By the way- a Probate Judge or a lawyer specializing in probate and estate settlements is the best source for buying good guns privately-IMO

Regarding "Heat Treatment" while slightly off topic, but I think relevent Julian Hatcher discuss heat treatment of the "Low number" 03 Springfield receivers in his "Notebook". Seems even the prestigious Springfield Armory at the time was still relying on "Color" observed by eye for the proper temperature. Litle problem was encountered as long as "Experienced Personal" were doing the work, but increased production for wwarfare resulted in less experienced people having to be utilized. Problems began to surface.
No doubt many of the double makers of this era also relied on temperature Color for proper treatment with a resultant occasional error. I do not think these few cracked frames should necessarily be considered "Typical" for a Fox gun. It is also noted I say this, "No"t as a prejudised FF (Fox Fan) as Lefever is my favorite of the American Classics.

Someone named Greener thought side-locks to be an anachronism once the cocks went inside in the 1870s...and the most recent reincarnation of the "Elsie" Smith is not a side-lock. I wonder why?

The on-going debate of side-lock versus box-lock is a recent invention. Greener's comment favored his new hammerless box-lock in the context a modernization of the action that was less costly to make. Back when he made his commercial pronouncement ca. late-1870s, the sporting pulp weeklies were largely written by subscribers--sort of like today's Internet websites like this one.

I have mined the old newspapers for info to pass along in my books and articles, more than anyone can imagine, plus I have a complete library of shotguns and shooting books pre-WWI. What I find interesting is that the contemporary print media of the 1870s through, say, 1910, is largely devoid of any discussion of box-lock versus side-lock, save Greener's self-serving single pronouncement that went to the simplified manufacturing procedure rather than any "better mouse-trap" analysis. The pulp weeklies especially were a bubbling cauldron of strong opinions by gun cranks, stated and rebutted endlessly, and I never found anything on the topic worth quoting from when the guns were cutting-edge in current production.

Side-locks today are a matter of taste, fashion, and opinion. Just how the "European perspective" imputes "preeminence" to the L. C. Smith is a matter of opinion. But it is a fact easily verifiable by clicking over to the Roy Eckrose Auction Summary on this very website: I used his 2004 analysis in my new book with a chart at p.337.

There were 104 Parkers of all grades and condition according to Eckrose, which averaged $4,382 (16 Trojans averaged $1,333). The 101 L. C. Smiths of all grades and condition averaged $1,274, which was less than Parker's lowest-grade "knockabout" Trojan.

The Parker price range was $250 to $31,625; the L. C. Smiths ranged from $172 to $18,400. Most telling was that 54% of the Parkers were above $2,000, while only 15% of the L. C. Smiths exceeded what I consider to be the entry level for a better kind of SxS shotgun.

This is not to say that one or another old-time shotgun is best by any objective standard, but I think the prices indicate a consensus that mitigates against claims of "preeminence" viewed through the lens of "European perspective." There's a neat picture in the "Box-locks versus Side-locks" chapter 32 (at p. 259) of my new book with this caption:

"L. C. Smith display where the "true believers" gathered at Madison Square Garden for the 1895 Sporting Goods Show. If contemporary pulp-weekly sportsmen's newspapers and shotgun-related books are any indication, these fellows were not discussing box-locks versus side-locks."

In other words, there is no silver bullet to define one "Best" gun from any one of the prominent makers. Overall there is a pecking order of average prices...and Lake Erie averages four feet deep; don't drown in the averages.

And here's a surprise: EDM just acquired a ca. 1904 Phila. Fox "A" s/n 262; wonder why? Well, mostly to help out a senior citizen, but also it's such a dead ringer for a Parker VH that it will produce some double-takes when I put it on my table at the Vintage Cup this September.

And what about Ithaca?

You don't suppose Mr. Fox actually admired (or even shot/owned) a Parker, do you????

I suspect that's like wondering if Ford ever tried out GM products and vice versa? As astute businessmen I expect they were intimately familiar with each othrs product.
Jim

i think ansley did shoot a parker in competitive shoots. im not sure though i havent read MM's book in almost a year.

eddie

Ansley Fox shot a Parker at the 1900 GAH while sponsored by Winchester ammo, and putzing around trying to get in the gun business. At some point after 1900 he started shooting a Winchester. "Researcher" can fill in the blanks. EDM EDM

I think the point is being missed here. Casually shooting a competitors product is one thing. Buying examples of the competitors product, tearing it down and analysing it's strengths and weaknesses with your internal staff is something entirely different and I suspect this is what was done.
I know from personal experience this was routine in the automotive industry.
Jim

My point exactly. Imitation is the highest form of flattery.

I own a Fox Sterlingworth that was lettered to the Winchester Co. I think that it was used when they were developing the M-21.

tim

Going back to when our favorite SxS's were in current production, there was a tremendous cross-pollination of guns and gun makers on a friendly basis. Old company-to-company correspondence in the hands of collectors shows that business relations were cordial and supportive, even in respect to patent litigation. In the days before the Sherman Act they even agreed on prices. The Interstate Manufacturers and Dealers Association was somewhat of a trust in that it owned and managed organized trapshooting from the early 1890s until it morphed into the current ATA in 1920. The Interstate Assn's BOD consisted of gun makers (like Wilbur Parker Jr.) and ammo company executives.

The thing that surprises me is how blatant the the Phila. Fox mimics the Parker's exterior design. It could not have been a good thing to start-up a new business with expensive tooling that simply copied the familiar and visible identity of a well-established product (unless there was a tremendous price advantage). So it's no surprise that the Phila. Fox had a short life, and Ansley's next gun had its own trademark exterior (see McIntosh's Fox book, p. 76 et seq). As to the interior design features, prudent gun makers would analyze the competition so as to avoid inadvertent patent infringement and, thus, maintain the goodwill of others in the business. Whether Ansley pissed off the Brothers Parker with his knock-off...we'll never know. EDM

As always Ed, enjoy your discourses and insight into our beloved doubles-and your "market analysis" proves the point- I can buy and shoot older 12 gauge Elsies and get more "bang for my buck" than I can either Parkers or AH Fox guns-in my area. Smiths are, I believe, a bar actioned sidelocked gun, not a back actioned like some of the "Limey" guns- BFD-- as long as it goes "bang" when I hit the trigger, I could care less- Ditto two 12 Parkers I inherited- both 12 gauge-ejectors, DT-- one was made in 1915-16 and has the earlier 18 pc. design and flat spring top lever- the other was made in 1925 and has the later Hayes redesigned action (4 pc. like the Fox I believe) and a coil spring top lever- both have shot quite well for my late GrandFather-

I was at a GR gun show last Sat. and a dealer/friend from the Niles, MI area had a signed copy of your book "Knight Of The Trigger" and he let me peruse it. In the first Chapter, the name Destry appears- is this an omage to "Market Hunter"-?? Destry H. the "Shootin'ist Gent from Ypsilanti". who is know to have a Parker or two-and knows how to shoot them as well?? Just wondered. RWTF

Runner:

Revdocdrew posted these pictures of L. C. Smith locks:





They're backlocks, not barlocks. The mainsprings are behind the lockwork (back action) rather than in the action bar (bar action).

...and Greener was a lone voice in the wilderness. To suggest that the debate is a recent invention is hilarious. You have a lot of reading to do.

This is painful, but the L.C. Smith Top-Action Double Cross-Bolted Breech-Loading Double Barrel "Bar Action" Hammer Guns were manufactured by L.C. Smith Maker, Syracuse 1883-1888 and Hunter Arms Co. until 1902.

Ed,

We have spoken about this privately. I am still of the opinion that the trust's played a larger role than we acknowledge today. They controlled not only pricing, but who could sell certain products. Your research in this area is seminal as so little has been written on the subject in recent times. One has to wonder if smaller companies failed as a result of the trusts.


I stumbled across a small online auction. The sole shotgun with very poor pictures had a hinge pin. I knew the gun would be a project, but for what I paid, no complaints. When I got the gun, thinking it might be a Parker, I was surprised to discover it was Philadelphia Arms Fox. This design had been used for the Baltimore guns as well. McIntosh quotes the "Sporting Goods Dealer" Oct 1899 which stated Fox could not manufacture enough guns to meet demand. Researcher informerd me that this Baltimore gun is actually designed by Frank A.Hollenbeck and that Fox purchased most of their equipment when the company folded.



Pete

Doc Drew were the L.C. Smith Top-Action Double Cross-Bolted Breech-Loading Double Barrel "Bar Action" used only on the hammer models or were they also used on the early hammerless guns as well. I haven't go the intestinal fortitude to pull the locks off of mine to check.

By the way the Quail are starting to pair up and the Roosters are starting to sing a bit. So far it looks like a decent breeding spring here in North East Kansas.

What is hilarious is how the Internet works. People with absolutely nothing to say get to say it anyway, with no peer review or editors interfering. I made the statement about box-locks versus side-locks not being a topic of serious debate when the guns were in current production: This was peer reviewed by Mike Carrick, editor of The Gun Report; Vic Venters, Senior editor of SSM; Dave "Researcher" Noreen; Charlie Price, co-author of The Parker Story; and a number of other experienced gun writers who are actually published in magazines and books. No one questioned my well-researched statement.

Right now I am in the process of inventorying and listing for sale most of my research materials, which include 45 volumes of Shooting & Fishing from 1885 to 1906, read cover to cover as they relate to shotguns and bird shooting (250 pounds of books, 1,092 16- to 24-page weekly issues, over 100,000,000 words). I have also bought, read, and sold the full run of bound annual editions of Forest and Stream--Rod & Gun from Vol. I in August 1877 through about 1890 the first 4 volumes brought $1,200 two years ago); S&F-R&G over-lapped my bound complete run of Shooting & Fishing. I have also bought, read, and sold a great many(over 2000 individual issues of The Chicago Field, and The American Field that dove-tail with my interest in absorbing what there is to know on the subject pre-WWI.

Meanwhile, I have a complete library of American-published shotgunning and shooting flying books from the first in 1783 until WWI, all read, by the way. And I supplement my reading in the rare book room at the National Sporting Library in Middleburg VA when I'm east visiting my kids. This research has resulted in 4 books in 14 years, and over 50 published articles. I am perhaps the only free-lance gun writer who is actually paid $$$ up front plus royalties to write a book. Parker Guns: The "Old Reliable" has sold over 8,000 copies and is running out the second printing; my new book, Parker Guns: Shooting Flying and the American Experience has over 30 dealers on Amazon cutting each other's throats selling it.

And then along comes somebody puesdo-named "400 Nitro Express," and with zero information to contribute, he says my well-researched, well-documented, and throughly vetted statement about the dearth of 19th century box-lock versus side-lock debate is "hilarious." And that I, of all people, "...have a lot of reading to do."

So the lesson here is how low the bar is when it comes to posting cryptic comments on the Internet. And the sad part is that these people get to vote.

Please be advised that I have no vested interest in whether there was much or little or no debate; if I had found any I would have reported it as a story line in the subject chapter on the topic. The lack of quotable quotes left me with Greener's pronouncement, which reflected his vested interest in his new box lock. End of story...

...except that my wealth of research materials, including original and reprint catalogs, advertising, post-WWI books, pulp-weekly newspapers, bound editions of pulp-weeklies, and shotgun- and ammo-related collectibles (used in my photography) will be sold over the Internet by e-Mailed lists for those who e-mail me to inquire and request info after my ad in the Summer Parker Pages is published. Thus "400 Nitro Express" has given me an excuse to toot my own horn and show that his sour lemon is my lemonade. EDM

Great news TB
Have you seen this? http://www.picturetrail.com/sfx/album/view/20611291

Here's a backyard Gambel's taunting my oppositional setter dog



And very soon we'll see this



The Alexander Brown 1886 patent hammerless Smith guns (from the beginning) are back action.

Edward, we've already established that you're the smartest guy in the room, please don't rub our noses in it.

Rev:
I don't know about your neighborhood but in mine the Quail are everywhere. I've lived here for 14 years now and I can't believe the numbers I'm seeing. We had a wet Winter and a wetter than usual early Spring which I think has increased the food supply and perhaps the survival rate. All this bodes for a banner Quail season come Fall.
Jim

Rev,

Your last picture is priceless......babes in a very tough woods (or garage?).

Sounds like a good start to a good fall is in the works.

Best,
Mark

Thankee Rev- "Ain't No Sunshine When It Rains- or Pains"- I recently bought a Syracuse L.C. Smith O Grade- mfg. aprox 1892 with 30" Damascus barrels- the early roll style extractor, double triggers, three position safety- and the main cocking springs are oriented just as you presented in your "Smoke and Mirrors" fotos herein- I have three 12 gauge pre-1913 "Elsies", and am looking at a fourth- a 1909 Grade 3E 12 (the ONLY gauge for little old me) with ejectors and Hunter One Trigger-if I buy it it will be my first Smith with that feature- and personally, I don't give a Famous Flying Philadelphia Fig which way the mainsprings are set in the sidelocks, as long as it goes "BANG" when I release the safety and hit the trigger-Ask Destry Hoffard-I spend my time and money (love being retired) on "using guns" that fit me and with which I can kill birds in flight, and I don't waste my $ on groups that dwell forever on "How much mustard Sam Hunter's wife put on his bologna sandwich that she packed in his lunch pail back in 1917 in beautiful Fulton, NY. RWTF. If the mechanism works reliably, WTF difference does the metallurgical analysis or the shape of the spring or bridle or sear angle of engagement matter- as Buck Hamlin once told me, "If a spring is gonna break, it will "first shot outta the box"- if its been in the gun for 80 years and hasn't failed, baring a nuclear attack, it will last indefinately- So Be It!!

After 8 pages of discussion of the relative merits of Foxes, LC's and Parkers, and photos of them with blown barrels or with cracked frames, I find no small amount of comfort in the one glaring omission in this dubious hall of shame: Lefever.

If someone has a photo or has heard of a Lefever cracking or blowing up, I would love to see it. Until then, I will go happily into the sunset believing there has never been a finer American gun made than Syracuse Lefevers, and without reservation, will enjoy using them as my daily go-to guns of choice.

In reference to the one post about classics not being up to the job of reliably putting meat on the table, I enjoy killing and eating birds as much as anybody, and I have never had a problem doing it with a Lefever, short chambers or light loads notwithstanding.

Dang it Mark you were supposed to keep all that stuff about Lefevers quiet.

I agree 100%- I had a Syracuse Grade G 12 bore sn 245xxx LeFever as a project gun- needed a stock extension- DT and Extractors and sold it recently to a private party. A pal has a Durston Special 20 with DT and ejectors and he doesn't miss many grouse or woodcock with that sweetheart double-BUT- LeFevers- the original "Uncle Dan" Syracuse gun- NOT the Bowling Green boxlocks, which are as scarce as a case of condoms in a convent, and certainly not the Ithaca owned LeFever guns- Boy Howdy recent gun shows and a beat-up 12 bore LeFever Nitro Special 30" DT at $800.00. When I asked the "dealer" why that price, he said "That's an original LeFever- they only made 400 of then" right- and the Monet print I bought at a "Starving Artists" show is an original too- give me a break--I think Daniel Myron LeFever was a genius, way ahead of his time, but possibly like Ansley Fox- a great shot, brilliant gun designer, but not a J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Samuel Insul or any other of the "Robber Barons" of that pre-Trust-Bustin' era-who knew how to make money and keep it--RWTF

Fox, you could have a point.

tim

I shoot an ocassional round of trap with my Lefever EE 12g using 2 1/2 in Vintagers. I average around 22/25 with it, the same as my Beretta 686 with adjustable comb and butt. The only problem I have had is that the gun gets a little hot on the fore end if there isn't a full complement of 5 on the range. I am going to try my DE today. I have to wonder if that Beretta will shoot as well in 100 years.

There are few Lefevers in these parts and those I've seen have been abused. I intend to buy a decent one should it turn up to adorn the pantheon of Elsie, Parker and Fox. I don't know why I've never had a hankering for an Ithaca. Lefever will complete the American classics for me.

The reason you don't hear about Lefevers is that they are not a viable contender. It's a little like when you discuss musclecars and someone always has to pipe up about AMC. Regardless of how good or bad they were, they never had a cohesive product offering and never produced enough to be in the running. Every gun seems different than the next. You can't even find a Lefever expert who can assess a Lefever without a bunch of 'I think's" and "Probably's".

Greg,
Thats a little like saying that the Shelby Cobra wasn't a viable muscle car in the early 60's. They didn't make a whole lot of them, and since each was hand crafted, there are variations. If being the first American Hammerless, the first with ejectors, the first with built in compensating system, among other innovations doesn't count for much I don't know what does. Lefever had a more or less consitent line of guns, with some later additions in the lesser catgories for 30+ years (1884-1916). They were for the most part slightly more expensive than other alternatives out there, but were much better built. If you go by sheer numbers produced you would have to conclude that a Ford Focus is superior to a Porsche 911.

I am completely out of the American double game nowadays, sold my last to a buddy/customer. It was one I was saving to upgrade, 16 ga sterlingworth 28" bbls and ejectors, just about 6 lbs. A very nice handling little gun. Were I to stray again, I think only a Lefever or small bore Fox could tempt me. Just one guys opinion.
Steve

Mark Donohue had 20 victories in three seasons with AMC in Trans-Am and took the western 400 in 1973 in an AMC. Anyone who says they never had a cohesive product offering has never been lined up next to a well prepped 390 AMX on a strip during bracket night, or isn't old enough to remember the red, white and blue Donohue AMX/Javelin cars in trans-am. Cohesive enough to be competitive in both realms (Trans-Am and NASCAR) is pretty damn impressive. If you want to throw in how much a hemi superbird is worth today (never mind how they ALL finished behind the Fords in actual races) keep in mind that anything with a hemi today is worth a whole lot less now than it was three years ago. A lot less.
The gold medal for trapshooting was won IN LONDON, in 1912 by an AMERICAN using a LeFever. Don't know where the Purdeys and Bosses placed, but, like they say, does it really matter?
Cohesive is, as cohesive does, it seems to me.

Using an old gun for putting game on the table is one thing, but, consider that some folks consider "using" a gun to be more like 6000 rounds a month. I don't know anyone who can say they use an 80-100 year old double gun for that kind of use. I do know folks who average that number of rounds in their guns.

They don't use old doubles.

Best,
Ted

Well Ted I'm not sure what your point is but those old boys shooting 6000 rounds a month aren't shooting small bore game guns either which I thought this discussion is about.

Anna Nicole is 83 years old. She maintains her voluptuous figure by eating an average of 1600 rounds per month. Since she got her new prom dress 15 months ago, she's gobbled up over 20,000 rounds. Over 2,000 of those were Remington Nitro 27's. Don't know how many 1 1/4 ounce paper Super X's she ate in the marshes before she came to live with me, but she's done her new owner right proud on the tournament circuit. Her triggers have balked a couple of times at the powder residue that got under them, but she's never doubled....unlike some of the Kreighoff and Perazzi company she keeps. Feel free to check in on her from time to time if you'd like a peek at her diary....we'll see how she holds up.

Right now, she's practically a virgin on the clays course.

Hold on a minute DrBob. Don't go diminishing the great Shelby Cobra by including it with the American muscle cars. The Shelby Cobra is easily a few levels above those you compare it to. I know - I was a street racer to reckon with in the day ('65 GTO trips, close-ratio Muncie no a/c, no ps)and lived to tell about it.

Ted, I don't what you've been smoking re: Superbirds losing to Fords....it's hard to dispute facts but you seem to do it. As for AMC's, I pointed out there's one AMC nut in every crowd and you seem to be it. Rage on.

Dr: A Shelby Cobra is a subset of a major automaker combined with a lesser maker and a 'builder'. It's an offshoot of automotive history, not an entire line of vehicles. But your analogy is good enough - saying a Lefever will hold the candle for American doubles would be like saying the Shelby Cobra is proof that an American car can beat all of the foreign exotics - so why would anyone need to buy a foreign exotic? The answer of course is the Shelby was never produced in enough numbers to offer a cohesive presence, and it had many shortcomings that begged to be improved upon.

If you've ever driven a Shelby you'll find the shifter in your armpit and the lack of even the most minimal soundproofing will have your arm hurting and your head ringing before long.

As for 'firsts', Cadillac had many firsts but I hardly consider them to be the 'go to' car.

My point was that Shelby was an automotive genius who took AC Cars ,hardly a major maunfacturer (Ford supplied parts but had no input as far as I can tell), and designed cars that were innovative at the time, and despite some flaws, still highly desirable today. He just didn't make a lot of them.

Lefever was much the same. The Lefever Arms Co. made well over 50,000 guns before being bought out by Ithaca, who then used the name to mass produce relatively cheap, but sturdy guns which DM Lefever had nothing to do with (he was long dead when the Nitro Special was introduced). To say that Lefever was a non-player, or a "Johnny come lately" in the heyday of the American side by side is just completely false. The thread was about Ameican side by side small bores, so I am not referring to any European "Exotics".

During the time they were co-existent Lefever was highly competetive with L.C. Smith and Parker in terms of high grade guns. Lefever actually made more high grade guns during that period than any of the competetors. Parker was more of a marketer and concentrated production on lower grades guns as did L.C Smith (Hunter Arms). DM Lefever left the company he founded when the "bean counters" insisted on making lower grade guns (the H, I and DS grades) that did not have the features and quality that DM Lefever felt were obligatory on guns he produced.

If you want to use the American Muscle Car an an analogy for American Hammerless Doubles I guess the Lefever would be the GTO. First, undoubtably competetive, and considered by some the best. However, "Best" like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

I don't mean to run down Lefevers in terms of their design or quality - I'm sure they are fine guns. But because they never commanded a market presence they really can't be the defender of the "American gun" reputation - which is how this thread began.

Hi Ho Deano- you never raced a Stutz Bearcat? Did you ever run a GTO (Gran Turisimo Omologatto maybe- like a Camaro IROC is an 'Italian Romeo Out Crusin') how about the series they called "The Judge"- dual quad Holley's or Rochesters- 4:11 Posi-Track, Hurst shifter, Iscandarian cam- the whole "Magilla"--And by the way, those Parker parts you passed on are enroute- in case your GHE 12 skeet gun needs a new spring-- RWTF

Darn it Mike,

Everytime I see that picture, I think of the 32" Sterlingworth in the safe......... with maybe a little tighter grip and a touch higher comb. Yours is a beauty!

Regards,
Ken

GreSy,
Checking the FACTS, we find the Superbirds won 8 races between 69-70. The Ford Talledaga won 29 during the same time period, the Mercury Spoiler II won 8. The The Dodge Daytonas won 6. Most of the Chrysler wins during the era were by Charger 500s (22) The Superbirds, did win some races, but, were not the dominant force in the era, and Ford DID NOT supply factory support for the 1970 season. Chrysler did, and through factory lobbying, was allowed to run dual four barrel carburators.
If the Ford guys had been allowed to run 8 barrels of carburation, as the Chrysler hemi cars did, there wouldn't have been any races to watch, save those between the Talledagas.
The Chrysler legend of the era was mostly made up, after the fact.
I haven't been smoking anything, GergSY. The facts are all out there, even you can find them.
The beautiful Fox gun up there has had a nice re-do. But, attempting the same use with original wood might reward one with a broken stock. For daily use, with modern ammunition, of the store bought high pressure variety, in an increasingly non-toxic shot specific world, small bore, or not, modern designs rule.
Best,
Ted

Mike Campbell:
All I can say is that's one Foxy looking Fox!!
Jim

Thanks for the kind remarks on the Fox. I can understand wanting a tighter grip, but it has double triggers and the radius is a slight compromise. It does have a faint palm swell that's difficult to detect with the eye. I started with a Bondo pattern, so I went entirely on trial & error, cause and effect, rather than pre-determined dimensions. After the fact, I find it's pretty close to my other target guns at about 1 3/8 by 2 1/8....pretty high and straight. Also, the grip ended up with a slightly smaller circumference than my O/U's, but lokks really thick. I sure wouldn't want it on anything but a dedicated target gun.

Something new to me was that I had it dialed in on the pattern board, then shot some straightaway trap from the low gun hold. I found I was frequently taking off the left wing? Back to the pattern board, low gun start, mount and fire....dead center. Added more cast (ending up with a solid 1/2" off at the heel) and could center the trap targets better.

Looking at pics on the web and asking questions, I find it's not uncommon to get a distorted view of stock drop. Maybe because we rarely photograph them in perfect profile as the catalogs do.

Well those dim's sound plenty workable to me! I like the direction you took in stocking your Fox...a true target gun with little compromise.

Ken

GJW,

Seems the thread has gotten away from your question. I've watched your odyssey of aquisitions over the past few years and finding that "sweet" handling you are fond of in the English and Spanish guns will be much harder in the American guns but not impossible. I wouldn't worry too much about the inherent weaknesses of any manufacturer. If you can find a gun that is in fairly high original condition or one that has been carried a lot and shot a little you will likely have very little or no trouble using appropriate loads.

The hard part will be finding the dynamics you enjoy. Look for a FW frame L.C. (usually about 6 1/2#), an O frame Parker (these seem to have a greater variation in weights) or a Fox with 3 or4 weight barrels (6#s +/-). You specify graded ejector guns in the Fox and Smith and ejectors in the VH. The cost the first two in a 40-60% may seem high and a VHE "O" with modern dimensions will blow ayour doors off.

A new adventure, have fun.

What exactly is "market presence"? You didn't post "market share" because you know as well as I do that the "best" guns of any country's make have little more than a sliver. The fact that Lefevers are so well thought of 100+ years past their making is proof enough of their worth.

Hi and thanks so much!! I do appreciate the comments and your suggestions. I will take them to heart.

Again thanks!! This is the kind of info I was after.

All the best!

Greg

"400 Nitro Express":... To suggest that the debate is a recent invention is hilarious. You have a lot of reading to do. [/quote]

"EDM": Along comes puesdo-named "400 Nitro Express," and with zero information to contribute, he says my well-researched, well-documented, and throughly vetted statement about the dearth of 19th century box-lock versus side-lock debate is "hilarious." And that I, of all people, "...have a lot of reading to do." .

"Timothy S":...Edward, we've already established that you're the smartest guy in the room, please don't rub our noses in it. [/quote]

Timothy S: Not the smartest, but at least well-read, and never one to turn the other cheek when when some unknown poster takes a cheap shot. Query: What did "400 Nitro Express" contribute other than a gratuitous personal dig? By the way, I prefer Ed, as in Edwin.

And anyone who cares to peruse my ten-page listing of bound research materials, original and reprint catalogs of all makers and many pre-WWI sporting goods sellers, bound editions of pulp weeklies, shotgun-related books, memorabilia, and ephemera can personal message me here or e-mail <knightofthetrigger@yahoo.com> for a list. My age and health dictates that it's time to share the wealth. The spring creeks of SW Wisconsin beckon me and my 6-foot 3-weight. Being the "smartest guy in the room" is hardly a term of endearment, and catches me flack...being "smartest on the trout stream" is a critique usually reserved to fish that need catchin'. Edwin D. Muderlak a/k/a EDM

Edwin- a fly fisher too- and "Once a King, always a King, but once a Knight is enough" wonder if all Artie DuBray bought into that bit?? RWTF

I notice that Ed didn't give the poster a clue as to what the prime topic of debate was at the turn of the twentieth century, so I will. He's right, it wasn't sidelocks and boxlocks. As someone who has read at least one percent of what Ed has in nineteenth century shooting periodicals, I am going to say it is "barrels, patterns, and penetration". I too have never seen much discussion, if any, about lockwork. OK, so the penetration business was a red herring, but it was discussed and advertised to death, whether a legitimate item for discussion or not. Of all the thousands of words of wit and knowledge contributed by readers in each weekly issue of the most popular publications, I don't remember ten words in all my reading about a gun that wouldn't go bang when the trigger was pulled. Oh well.

Eightbore:
I for one am going to side in with you here. The hot topics in years gone by were patterning,penetration and choking as I remember them. items such as barrel length,action type,pistol or straight grip etc. were just personal preferences and usually left at that.
We have gotten to the point where minutae is king of discussions any more and perhaps have lost sight of the main goals which are to enjoy target shooting and hunting with shotguns.
Jim

I guess that I own the one 16 gauge SxS that I've always wanted. It's an Ithaca Classic Doubles 4ES with two sets of 16 gauge barrels, the only one ever made.
It's got a Krupp steel barrels, Miller Single Trigger, BTFE, English stock and is drop dead gorgeous with it's Turkish walnut stock and fine Adams & Adams engraving.
Sorry, my photo skills aren't what I would like, but you get the idea.
Did I mention, it's gun #2 of a matched pair the other being a 28 gauge?

The answer to the original question is obvious. As Ansley said -- "Finest Gun in tha World"

Yup- and Foxes aren't easily fooled. I owned one until recently, but as I read about my gunning hero Nash Buckingham, as age crept on him the heavier Burt Becker No. 2 at 10 lbs. (my guess) became a tad much and he went to other 12 gauges that were lighter-I also agree with him about banning the pipsqueak .410 for All waterfowling- or perhaps the steel shot legislation took care of that- saw a box of Federal 1 1/8 oz. No. 4 Steel shot at a GM Store a few weeks ago- didn't even know the "bastard gauge" was used much for waterfowling- for grouse and quail, especially in the South- Heck yes- but for pass shooting- "The Acme of All Wingshooting"- nothing less than a 12 bore "cuts it"- IMO. RWTF

Bill: You have read a great deal more than you are giving yourself credit for, plus you have a wealth of diversified hands-on experience. And you are correct: The ca. 1900 shooter was deep into, of necessity, loading his own shells for pattern and penetration.

At the turn of the last century the team leaders (foremen/contractors) at Parker Brothers made 25- to 35-cents an hour, and factory loads cost 55 cents per box of 25. To think that someone like the barrel-maker Jim Geary had to work about two hours to earn enough to shoot one round of trap at the Parker Gun Club, and Hayes signed a contract to run the entire operation for $1.00 per hour. The gun was a given, a capital item; bank presidents shot the higher grades; tellers and loan officers the lowest grades; lawyers and doctors the middle grades; captains of industry the imported Purdeys and the domestic "vanity grades." And all these people knew exactly what they were getting for their hard-earned or ill-earned $$$. Prestige! The "poor white folk" bought a T. Parker or N. R. Davis for $11.00 at Sears.

The great equalizer was ammo and the relentless testing of loads for pattern and penetration. Only the well-heeled could pop for factory loads, and the average wage earners made it up by maximizing the performance of the gun they had, the gun they could afford. If they could afford a Parker, many specified pattern count with a given size shot and drams of powder.

As to barrels, the advent of fluid steel pretty much put the end to fashion dictated by barrel pattern. Knights of the trigger in the know preferred the cloud-like irregular patterns of English Laminated for objective durability and subjectively anecdotal evidence of "shooting harder." Fashion, however, won out and the more regular patterns of Damascus came to be preferred over the harder-to-make Laminated (which wore out boring bits because of a greater percentage of steel). After "black" fluid steel barrels became the norm, gun makers carried forward the tradition of grading guns by "barrel quality"--Titanic, Acme, Vulcan, Parker Special Steel, Trojan, etc.--even though there was no discernible difference, except possibly in the depth and smoothness of finish. The Whitworth barrels on my AAH Pigeon Gun look different cosmetically than the barrels on my unfired Trojan (sold recently); whether the ca. 1896 Whitworth Steel bbls are "better" than the Trojan Steel bbls--by any objective standard-- or better than Titanic Steel or Vulcan Steel ca.1898, or Trojan Steel after 1912 is problematical. Gunmakers carried on the Trademarking of barrel steel for quite awhile, Parker only putting the practice to rest when Remington moved the operation to Ilion in 1937-38 by omitting a barrel steel ledgend on the rib.

All this is well documented and hashed over in the literature of our sport. As to box-lock versus side-lock, I'm still waiting for anyone to come up with that which I somehow missed. My take on this is that the box-lock was thought to be an advancement in gun making when the Industrial Revolution favored the relentless search for better and more cost effective ways of doing everything. Parker experimented with side-lock but went with the new technology; Ansley Fox came later with a box-lock; Ithaca and Lefever adopted the box-lock for their concealed hammer guns, as did Olin's Mod. 21.

I have never been able to find a rationale for L. C. Smith's sticking with the side-lock except as implied in the LCS 1889 catalog (at p. 13), yet the distinctions made between their new hammerless and "...many of the hammerless guns which have preceded it...[and]...all foreign guns..." are nothing more than sales puffery. And all the well-known foreign guns save the Greener had (and still have) side-locks. Anyway, I think the ongoing and somewhat contrived side-lock versus box-lock debate is all smoke and no fire. The LCS 1889 catalog hype cited various objections to the hammerless guns of other un-named makers:

Ungainly proportions of the frame...

Weakness of the frame...

Short frame...

Numerous springs and small parts liable to break...

Foreign guns without a joint check...

Methinks that a lot of the latter-day lock-type-hype comes from certain people reading the 1889 LCS catalog reprint and taking it as the gospel truth.

Meanwhile, Capt. Bogardus endorsed the LCS in a testimonial letter in the 1889 catalog, as he had endorsed every other gun he had given him, including a Parker. But as to the value of his opinion, let me quote Bogardus himself:

"I could never see any use to a shooter in a long theoretical or practical description of the principals and details of guns as they are made...sportsmen may safely leave such matters to the gunmakers, who are nearly everywhere a very ingenious, painstaking, and trustworthy class of men." A. H. Bogardus in his best selling book, Field, Cover & Trap Shooting (at least 8 printings copyrighted 1874, 1879, 1884, 1891).

I rest my case. EDM

Bogardus...

http://books.google.com/books?id=HxRIAAA...ooting#PPA35,M1



1907 - Stength / Reliability


1911 - Pattern / Penetration


Pete

Some of the most entertaining and, to the writers at least, technical debate in early sporting weeklies was the animated discussion of extension ribs and compensating devices.

In his 1910 book Askins stated something along the idea that the hammerless sidelock was an evolutionary step from the hammer gun but that the boxlock was the real answer. It does seem that the good Captains tastes ran to boxlocks with Parker Bros., Ansley H. Fox, and Ithaca guns being prominant in his writings. However, he did seem to go verticle with the introduction of the Browning Superposed.

Personally, I believe the Boxlock vs sidelock was always more a British thing than American. It was definitely an ongoing subject by the time burrard began his writings on the Shotgun, & a subject to which he devoted considerable space. Personally I don't really consider the 1920's as "Recent". I suspect Greener didn't devote much to the subject as his boxlock preference put him in the definite minority in England, yet he really made no great attempt to extoll it's "Superiorty". I will have to get out my copy of the 1909 "Baker Gunner" but as I recall the Baker Co was extolling the virtues of the Sidelock in it. It doesn't really appear to be a Johnny-come-Lately subject to me, but what do I know, I haven't used up a case of linament from patting myself on the Back over my superior knowledge.

I think Greener put his money where his mouth was-Didn't the G guns sell for as much or more than contemporary hammerless sidelocks of the era?

A pity there were so few gunsmiths that truly understood the design. In profile, from a few feet, they do look a bit like a Fox.

I don't have a dog in that fight, since, my Tobin isn't exactly a sidelock, and my Darne isn't exactly a boxlock (that may be the understatement of the week).

I'd take a G gun over a sidelock any day, however.
Best,
Ted

PS GregSY, you fell strangely silent at the fact that the blue oval guys had a few more wins (second understatement of the week) than the winged Mopar guys did in the era of the aero production cars. I hope I cleared that misunderstanding up a bit for you.

Like I said, I don't smoke anything.

Best,
Ted

Greener had little to say about his box-lock versus the side-locks except that side-locks were no longer necessary once the hammers went inside.

As luck would have it, I just pulled my reprint copy of the 1909 Baker catalog for a buyer selecting from my For Sale List of Shotgunning Ephemera, which on topic says:

"The side-plate lock mechanism was retained [on the new Baker hammerless] as the most satisfactory on account of its greater simplicity, strength, and accessibility." The company goes on to say that it made a box-lock "...which had its adherents, and there was some demand for a baker gun of that model...on account of its cheaper construction..." But after a laundry list of what was wrong with the Baker C-grade box-lock, "...it was decided, therefore, a few years ago, to discontinue its manufacture, giving preference to the present [side-locks]..."

Given that in 1909 the Baker side-locks listed for $21.75; $25.00; $28.00; $37.50; $29.50; $25.00; $41.50; $35.50; and $48.75; and the lowest price Parker VH started at $50.00 without ejectors ($75.00 with), and the Baker Paragon with ejectors was $82.50, with "Model Nineteen-Nine" at $85.00 to $300.00 (with Whitworth bbls), its hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Baker's rationale for quitting the box-lock was that:

"The [Baker C-grade] frame was not as solid and rigid..."

And now a century later the results are in: Neither box-locks or side-locks failed for lack of sufficiently rigid and/or solid frames. Yet what was a one-sided trial-balloon-type declaration of self-serving advertising pap, by Greener (box-locks ca.1881) and Baker and L. C. Smith (years later), was never picked up by the "gun cranks" of the era as a legitimate topic of discussion. Ansley Fox preemptively declared his new gun "The Best Shotgun in the World." I don't recall anybody ever disputing his claim. The rank and file weren't interested in the fine points of self-serving ad hype. Fox's guns had "nosed" hammers, as did the Parker; the Baker side-locks did not, because, according to the 1909 catalog:

"The [Baker C-grade] hammers, having the firing pins on the points ["nosed"], were more liable to break..."

Here it's interesting to note that Del Grego's have drawers full of Parker "nosed" hammers bought from Remington in the 1950s, and in over half a century, "Babe" told me that they have never had occasion to repair or replace even one broken hammer. I guess that's lucky, because according to Baker, they discontinued their C-grade box-lock because:

"The assembling of [Baker C-grade] lock parts on pins through the frame made them more difficult of access and to remove and replace properly."

If this were true, and a real deciding point, one would think that difficult assembly would drive up labor costs, making box-locks less cost effective; at Parker Brothers ca.1909, Walter King is quoted as saying that labor was 80% of the cost of a $100.00 D-grade.

My bracketed insertions of [Baker C-grade] in the Baker sales material is because they never accuse the Fox or Parker or Ithaca of the shortcomings, but merely said that their experience warranted going the route of side-locks on their full line of guns all priced below the competing box-locks that supposedly were cheaper to make. The market today values a top grade Baker Paragon 12-bore, two of which are pictured in my new book, in 100% condition at $1,815 with ejectors (Blue Book 2006). A Parker Trojan box-lock in 100% condition sold recently at public auction for $10,350.

Two points: First, the marketplace doesn't distinguish between lock configuration (then or now); someone who appreciates fine old shotguns can buy a decent Baker Paragon in collectible/shootable condition at a reasonable price. See Dave Noreen's & Phil Murphy's Bakers in my book @ pp. 190-94 and wonder why you don't own one...Baker and/or my new book, which has a chapter on Bakers. Sorry, but the Baker catalog is spoken for, yet my 12-page For Sale Ephemera List is available by e-mail; request to:

knightofthetrigger@yahoo.com

EDM

Ted, I love the G guns, but love even more the Greener guns with forend ejectors, either Facile Princeps or A and D. I have had several Greeners, but my favorite is a Monarch Imperial 16 ga. Just the finest gun being built at that time ca. 1900. Then they cost 70 Guineas.

Daryl, I think the Facile Princeps might have been what I had in mind when I typed that! Anyway, right, I'd love the experience of owning one, just not enough to part with the cash to do it. I've been static on doubles in the safe for several years now, although Dad's Beretta Silver Snipe 12 just came to live with me. That makes three.
As to nosed hammers, my one, lone experince was with a friends 700, that broke the nose of the right barrel hammer on the opening shot, of the opening season, of two years past, the pheasant escaped. Said gun was out of commision the rest of the year. It was an expensive fix, as I recall.
Enjoy that Monarch, in 16, no less. A superb upland gun, I imagine. If I owned it, I'd pretty much relegate that gun to bluebird conditions, and use something else in the nasty weather. I've noticed I stumble about a bit more in the field these days as well, and the stock for, say, an American pump is easier to come by than the same for my Tobin, restocked to fit my sorry, lefthanded arse, for example. I'm poor enough that I choose to delay the onset of repairs to the old guns I own, by being ever so careful in their use.
Best,
Ted

Bogardus...didn't he shoot W&C Scott guns ?

Wasn't the sidelock a safer design than the boxlock ?

Intercepting sears can be found on both boxlocks and sidelocks, though they may be more common on sidelocks. Neither design is inherently more safe. The only thing that makes a gun safe is proper handling. I do like intercepting sears though. I may post pictures a bit later of a nice gun with them.
Steve

Q; How long have men argued over the merits of Ford vs Cheverolet?
A; Since both were available!
Q; How long have men argued the merits of Boxlock vs Sidelocks???
A; ?????????????????, Think what you will & back it with all the ""PROOF"" you desire.
I am not convinced!!!

Who wouldn't like to reread this 12 page thread with Ed Muderlak's great comments and Ted's comment about Olin using an Ithaca instead of a Model 21 to test their new 3 1/2" ten gauge shells, which would be a very tight fit in a Model 21.

they all are wonderful in their own way...

sorta like women...

Very interesting thread.

Brings back a lot of memories. I really miss Mike Campbell. His was a voice of experience in so many things doublegun-related.

This was his last post, about six years ago .............. "I've enjoyed it here for most of the last 13 years. I may come back when these clowns are gone. Carry on."

Well they can't ALL be the best













(BTW: I can't edit and restore the images in the old posts)

And the winner is - The Woolwich!!

ah gotta git me one o dim woolwichs...dat kills at 150 yards...

Why Ed? You gonna start hunting again? Past that this resurrection of topic is sobering considering there are only about four or five of the original posters that are present and active now.

Chief

chief...fraid not...too old, too tired an too soft hearted...

I'm a fan of of the Fox Stelingworth and the LC Smith. Granted i am not nearly as well versed as those who can site load data or design/manufacturing info and what not to argue their value, but mine is more of an on the ground "take".

My vote the for the AH Fox line of shotguns because of the different versions of barrels they produced for the same receiver. Also because Fox put a 16Ga on a 20Ga frame and that makes one hell of a grouse gun when you are walking and carrying it all day. If I had the funds, I'd end up with with a 16GA CE. That one strikes the right balance for me.

A close 2nd for me would be the LC Smith. Again, more of an on the ground take. There are ones that are light, and one that are heavy. I usually look for the FW frame designation, and they have a different design then their regular framed models.

If you can sift through them, that would be great, but I haven found an LC Smith store yet. I got lucky with my FW 20GA, comes in a little heavier then my Sterly, but nut by much. Elegant and graceful with a minimalist approach for their field guns. Never had one fail, but the there is a lot to be said about the common complaint of not leaving enough wood abound the locks, resulting in a lot of cracks behind the locks.

I don't think there are any new revelations here.

As compared to European guns, well thats apples to oranges. Sure a Best model is going to be more well made. But they were not produced for a mass market of hunters that needed a reliabe gun to put food on the table.

I think kieth at one point put up a post abuout a serous level of abuse one had to put an LC Smith through before the barrel gave.

I wonder wonder how long a Best model would stand up to that. I really dont know.

I'm one of those 4 or 5 original posters and I'm still alive and active. In addition, Ed Muderlak, in post #145994, gave me a compliment, something I had never experienced, before or since. My opinion of Ed has changed radically since I read that post.

two thoughts...

- once had a 16 ga parker, built on a 20 ga 00 frame, with under three pound barrrels. whole gun weighed just six pounds, as i recall...rehomed it with grouse hunter from minnesota, as i recall...now we all know that most parkers are heavier than sin, but not awl...

- consider the ithacas...early 16 ga flues guns generally run about six pounds. the 28" guns are wonderfully balanced...nids are certainly sturdier than the early flues, but run a tad heavier...

do agree that 16 ga foxes and smiths are hard to beat...but then take a look at this, my new flame...


https://www.gunsinternational.com/g...un-28-.cfm?gun_id=102065258&cdn_bp=1