doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com a place to ruminate about lc smith and others

need lots of input here...

they look the same...

but i am sure they are not...

Just went through this Ed. Look at my recent Twist versus Laminated Steel thread. After Syracuse & starting in 1890, there was a transitional period at Fulton where Syracuse-sourced parts were consumed, but by 1894 the Fulton guns were uniquely their own. Build quality was noticeably better (shaping of the actions was more graceful, w/better attention to detail, & English walnut was used). After 1913 however, corners started being cut and American walnut was substituted for English. Still good guns but....arguably lesser-so.

I've been wallowing in Smith lore for the last 2 weeks but I'm sure many here know much more.

EDD Is going to be hawking something soon this is presale crap. he wants no information he won't look at past post

I have to partially disagree with Lloyd, the Syracuse L.C. Smith's were built in my opinion better that any other gun including the English guns. The Quality 7 was the most expensive shotgun made in 1887-1888 at $740 and was the most expensive shotgun anywhere. The engravers that Lyman hired were the best there were. The walnut was all sourced from Europe. The barrel stock probably from Belgium as I don't think here in the U..S. anybody was making barrels. The serial numbers for hammer guns started at 10,000 in 1884 and ended in late 1885 at serial number 14,999. Starting in 1886 the hammer guns started at serial number 15,000, 17,000, 21,000. Hammer guns started in late August 1886 at serial number 16,000, 18,000, 19,000, 22,000, 23,000 and ended at serial number 23,553 in my records.

Many people bad mouth the L.C. Smith for the crack/s behind the lock plate/s, this is from the Fulton era when they used American walnut and American walnut is no good for a true side lock shotgun. I have many pictures of Syracuse L.C. Smith's and have never seen a crack in the area behind the locks.

I am always collecting data and serial numbers on both the hammer and hammerless L.C. Smith shotguns. I have accumulated 381 serial numbers of both types. In catalogs of 1888 they list only 10 and 12 gauge guns with 30"or 32" barrels in Regular Weight, Heavy Weight and Extra Heavy. Only within the last 8 years have some 8 gauges surfaced from Syracuse. These must have been special ordered because of no reference to them.

https://vicknairgunsmithing.blogspot.com/2016/01/an-unbiased-look-at-design-of-american.html

Best,
Ted

just a reminder, the purpose of this thread is to simply document the physical differences between the pre 1913 smiths and the later guns...

like were many of the post 1913 smiths made with twist steel type barrels...or were they mostly made with fluid steel type barrels...

what about changes to the action and bolting systems...

what changed in 1913, besides the grade designations...

Everything you ask is on the internet or in books that are available at your local library

wow, thanks for link to Dewey's blog, very interesting

Evolution at work (at L.C.Smith)...

Syracuse Grade 4 (pre-1888)

Syracuse late Grade 1 (still pre-1888 & probably a 10-gauge)

Fulton No.1 circa 1890 (1st year at Fulton) w/lots of cracks, sadly.

Fulton No. 1 circa 1891 (2nd year at Fulton)

Fulton No. 1E circa 1901

Fulton Field Grade circa 1914 20-gauge (featherweight frame)

Fulton Field Grade circa 1930 (regular frame)

Note the changing shape of the breech balls and the lockplates over time.

Due to the eruption this [censored - come on man!] ring of Ed’s repetitive posts covering historically common doublegun questions,
(ALL asked and repeated here regularly for more than 20 years)

It almost looks to me like his online analytics report is telling him that generating an incessant volume of repetitive questions bumps the viewing of his on-line offerings.

God forbid this site get clogged up with searchable questions by every online peddler out there.

It reminds me of ringworm.