doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com pre & post Fulton Smith guns (photo rich)

He had a unique and steady take on things Stanton, I enjoyed his presence here. He is missed. He should have his own thread.

Not to derail LLoyd's thread, who else lately?

Chief

A recap (just for my own sanity). Entry level Smith guns from the beginning (using John Houchins 2006 LC Smith book):

For clarity, we'll ignore hammer guns and the early three-barrel guns.

LC Smith, Syracuse, New York: Quality 2 Gun, $80 (1886-1889)
LC Smith, Fulton, New York: Quality 1 Gun (Transitional), $60 (1890-1892)
LC Smith, Fulton, New York: Quality 1 Gun, 1893-1895, price on request? ($60 is mentioned elsewhere)
No. 1 Gun, 1892-1913, $60 (Houchins mentions two start dates for the No. 1 guns, 1892 and 1895). Confusing.
No. 0 Gun, 1895-1913, $47
No. 00 Gun, 1898-1913, $25
Hunter Arms Company Fulton Gun, 1915-1945, $22.85 (Not an Elsie sidelock, but a Smith doublegun all the same).

LC Smith sidelock hammerless guns started out as mostly hand-made guns in 1886 and then evolved to being almost completely mass-produced & machine-made guns (with exceptions being made for the higher grade guns) by the 1940s. These entry-level Smith guns were competing in the market with both domestic (Parker Trojans, Ithaca Flues, Fox Sterlingworths, etc.) and imported guns.

President Woodrow Wilson signed the Underwood Tariff Act in 1913 (the polar-opposite of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930), reducing import tariffs and flooding the domestic gun market with cheap European imports (this is likely what caused the Hunter Brothers to significantly modify operations at Fulton, further streamlining the mass-production component of their products).

All this begs the question... how does one differentiate a "fine" gun from a farm implement, i.e., a mere "tool", eh? Most would agree that "fine" doubleguns are largely handmade (with exceptions now for modern CNC technology being used to streamline production at even the most prestigious English gun firms). But...how is that so different from what Hunter Arms did in 1913?

Good points Lloyd. According to the great ? Dewey Vicnair all L.C. Smith's were farm implement tools. I guess it is because they didn't have intercepting sears and other things that he brought up which I and many don't agree with and that I can't remember.
I think you have to go back to when John Hunter first bought L.C. Smith in 1888-89, those guns from Syracuse were all hand done with machine parts, as guns all over were made. It is what went into them that sets them apart. L.C. Smith hired the best engravers that also did work for other gun manufactures and you can see this by the engraving they did. They had brokers going overseas looking for the best walnut for stocks. The early Hunter Arms L.C. Smith's show this until around 1914-1918 when the war changed most manufacturing.
You can read most of this in the book.

I have to respectfully disagree to this entire concept. Smith cranked these guns out the same way “they” mass produced the typewriter and Henry Ford did Model Ts.
The highest grades were CERTAINLY works of art but that is less than 1% of the 1% and ignorant to apply that glory to the entire line. The 1,2, and 3 grade guns with their simple and shallow engraving might as well have been roll stamped.
I’m a poor boy from a blue collar town and I love a Grade 2 LC Smith without shame, but don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining!

Marks21:

You don't have to agree with any of it, as it's not an "all or nothing" situation. The change-over from hand-made to machine-made didnt't happen overnight, it was a gradual process that likely took a slow and winding road to finally evolve. There was no "internet" then and they weren't dealing with "Gen-X" workers. I'd guess that as skilled workers aged-out, processes changed as newer (and younger) folks took their places at the bench. The big shift really didn't seem to occur until after the 1913 event, and even then it would have taken some time to impliment. And, while you're right about the low-percentage of Graded or higher-end guns being produced, that doesn't mean they had to stop using the better or more-proper processes on the more-expensive guns. Modern firearms manufacturers have "custom shops" and I'm guessing that the folks at Fulton did as well. I'd also bet that they did as good a job as they could until the older "talent" was no-longer available. I've seen some post-13 graded Smiths that were still pretty impressive. The Field grade guns might have suffered from the mass-production process a bit earlier, but even in the Field grades that I've seen & handled, there are some pretty decent examples & they're out there still, even from the later years.

Mark's it's raining.
After 1912 when the numbered guns (except Deluxe and Monogram) were changed to noun grades like the 00,0 to Filed Grade and Ideal Grade and when they started making box lock guns was because in order to stay in business they had to make lower graded guns to keep up with the market. You still see very few of the other mass produced guns, but in my opinion you see more low end graded Smith's still working fine because they were still hand fitted and all removeable parts were serial numbered to make sure they fit that gun when assembled.
Say what you want.

I know I’m pushing buttons— I will say I don’t profess any of it absolute. There is no doubt these guns have lasted 100+ years and many could still out last me or “ya’ll” and shoot untold thousands of rounds. I have no doubt that skill level and work ethic has declined every decade since these factories opened their doors. Find the man who will find Garcia! Bear in mind that letter itself was written in 1898/1899 (iirc) But remember without a doubt, it was a factory- pictured right on the letterhead, and it’s a typewriter, or a Model T, or a coffee grinder. There’s no shame in that. It sustained production for 70 ish years? The guns themselves lasting over 100. There are no doubt gems of the bunch. There were no doubt items “built on a Friday.”
If you want innovation, design, or evolution: D. Lefever, F Hollenbeck, F Lefever. L.C. Smith was business, Hunter was business. I have no doubt they tried to buy the best. I think it a bold claim to think that is always for sale or truly confined to one business. I mean L.C. Smith was not the New York Yankees even if Ruth owned one!
(1960 still the best World Series BTW)

I’m going to catch with my kids

Bill Mazeroski's game-ending homer in the 9th inning of game 7 at Forbes Field was indeed pretty spectacular. Growing up a few hours north of Pittsburgh had me seeing that footage being replayed throughout all my early years in Pennsylvania. When the City of Pittsburgh tore down Forbes Field (to replace it with Three-Rivers Stadium in the early 1970s) they re-developed the site of the former ballpark (into a shopping mall, of all things!) but....they preserved that section of the left-field wall (where his homer went over it) as a shrine to that fateful day in 1960. Three-Rivers Stadium is now gone as well, replaced by yet-another monstrous edifice. I haven't been there in over 30-years, but I'd like think that the little piece of Mazeroski's wall is still there.

Back to the topic at hand...





I must confess that I shamelessly "snipped" these lovely photographic examples from the LC Smith webpage. Further, I must give credit here to J. David Williamson for these clear & lovely examples (of the early products of the LC Smith capitalist enterprise). Mr. Williamson mentioned the difference between the breechballs in the pre & post Fulton era guns earlier here, and I couldn't find a good example to illustrate that point until... this was just re-posted over on the Elsie site (by our good Dr. Drew BTW). The bottom photograph nicely details the differences in the bolsters on the bottoms on the actions as well. The 1890 Quality 1 Fulton-era photography I snipped and posted here earlier looks almost exactly like the Syracuse example shown on the bottom photograph (both have that square barrel lug), and my 1891 Quality 1 gun is shaped almost identically to the Fulton gun shown there as well (with the rounded barrel lug). I suspect that the bottom gun (identified here as circa 1896) is actually an earlier example than the date listed.

You know, I've handled and even measured a number of British "Bests"" over the years and they were (and are) truly-lovely guns (Purdey, Boss, Holland & Holland, etc.) but...I've never been much-tempted to actually pony-up the price-of-admission for such a gun (and it is unlikely now that my circumstances will ever allow me to go down that path). I would, however, be sorely tempted by an American "Best" gun now, such as a Syracuse Era LC Smith. These guns have been something of a revelation for me, I must confess (yet again). It's been fun learning about them.

The wall is still there and the home plate still rests, under glass -supposedly in its original location, in the floor of one of the halls of the University of Pittsburgh.

Home plate at PittHome plate at Pitt