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

Beans, welcome back. I think...
JR

My experience with cracking mirrors Dave Williamson's. I have never owned a pre 1913 Smith with cracks behind the lockplates.

Perhaps I wasn't being clear earlier. I wasn't comparing the Fulton guns to the Syracuse guns, other than to point out a few visual differences between the two eras of production (Mr. Williamson is likely right, they may very-well be as good as it got). I was merely trying to clarify why I preferred the pre-1913 guns to the later guns.

lloyd, wonderful post and images...

recorded here for posterity...

afterall, this is doublegunshop.com...

the best single source for everything doublegun...

Not Beans.

We've had this conversation before John.
David is the Technical Advisor for the LCSCA and previous editor of the Journal of the LCSCA

Unlike Dave Buehler/Pine Creek Dave he is most certainly fixed in reality.
Argue opinions if you wish...not assumed personalities.

Any chance of somebody posting a few Syracuse-era Elsie pix here to compare? The LCSCA site isn't as photograph-rich as it once was and I've had very little luck finding good photography of the earlier-era guns (which, I presume represents only a fraction of the total production for the years at Fulton), especially in the lower grades.

From the minor education I've had researching these earlier Smiths (over these last few weeks), I've come to appreciate them a great-deal more than I have in the last, say 30 years or so(?). I had, quite frankly, dismissed them from any consideration (for purchase and/or use) in my search for the more-perfect upland gun. I'm now thinking that the pre-1913 guns (especially in the lower grades) represent a pretty-decent value in the modern doublegun world, at least these days. They've been largely passed-over by the yuppies of my generation & later (& for all the reasons I'd considered as well). The later Field Grades still leave me a little cold, but 1890 to 1913 production, even in the lower grades, isn't half-bad. They still weigh far too-much for their respective gauges (IMHO) but....they do represent a better-era of production quality in this country (is it time to wave the flag here yet?) and if they were properly cared for over the years (a big if), they were seemingly very well-made and accordingly... can still be quite serviceable.

I'd like them even-better if they had been built with skosh-more gun-safety in mind (intercepting sears and/or even slightly more-sophisticated safeties would have been a huge improvement) but they are what they are, and that is historic, substantial, and attractive.

Lightweight, small gauge Smiths in pre 1913 persuasion are hard to find, especially in high condition. More sophisticated safeties would be hard to find. Forward-fire, backward-safe. The three position safety is about as sophisticated as safeties get. I'm a bit in the dark here.

Eightbore: You're absolutely right. The expression "hen's teeth" come to mind, which is exactly why I abandoned my search (& about 30-years ago now) for a "domestic" doublegun to satisfy my "needs" (i.e., wants) for a more-perfect birdgun. Very few (if any) of the American double-guns from our "classic" period would meet those requirements (for long, light, lovely & relatively safe).

The LC Smith 3-position safety is fine in the hands of a well-seasoned and knowledgeable shooter, but in the hands of an amatuer (or even an uninformed) shooter it is a recipe for disaster IMHO. I guess I'm thinking of the "dickybird" type of safety that you'd likely find in a better English doublegun, which very simply & effectively acts as a trigger block (& there are evidently some that reportedly block the hammers as well?). I know it's both unreasonable (and unrealistic) to impose the designs (and then the execution of those designs) from hand-made guns to mass-produced or "machine-made" guns, but there you have it. And, of all the guns from our classic-period (Fox, LeFever, Ithaca, Remington, Parker, etc.) only the "Elsie" has the well-earned reputation for going off when badly-jarred or dropped. Evidently, even simple American boxlock designs aren't as sensitive to such a shock as sidelock guns are, and of-course, the Brits (& the others) have simply engineered around that problem.

as i recall, early ithaca guns (pre 1920 or so), have three position safeties...

all the way back equals fire all the time a trigger is pulled. its non automatic and like having no safety at all...

when the safety button is in the middle position, the triggers are blocked and the gun will not fire...

when the safety button is full forward, the gun will fire when a trigger is pulled. if the gun is opened and recocked, the safety automatically returns to the middle, safe position...