doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Reinforcing Stereotypes, Failures & Anomalies

Hmmm...I guess Monday morning quarterbacks always have been low on my list of humans.

Like those who 'know musclecars' and proclaim them to be lousy cars, someone looking back on guns designed 125 years ago and proclaiming them to be junky doesn't strike me as someone too smart. Especially when neither the musclecar expert or the gun know-er never produced a gun or car of his own. Everyone's a critic.....

The 'modern gun', much like the modern car, stands on the shoulders of what was produced 40 or 75 or 100 years ago. Sitting in my Lexus LS460L, it would be easy for me tell you just why the 1957 Imperial LeBaron was an absolute piece of junk. But I don't do that because it would make me a fool as well.

And let's not mention that your average piece of crap LC Smith or Parker has 1000 times more soul than any gun built in 1980 will ever have.

Well, I gotta go. I'm throwing out all my Jimi Hendrix records 'cuz God knows Lenny Kravitz is far more modern and better.

"A manufacturer (of anything) is as likely to adopt a "feature" based upon a PERCEIVED benefit as an ACTUAL one."

Jay, I have been involved, through my work, in both watching and influencing the design and production of consumer products, specifically sporting goods hardware and footwear, where "features" are regularly included that do NOTHING to make the product better but they make the product easier to sell, based on the PERCEPTION of the marketplace. And we all knew it.

Totally agree James, can't see where I've said otherwise, maybe created an unintended inference. My suggestion that Winchester engineers in the 1920s may have thought there was real benefit in the dovetails might be wrong. Maybe as Buzz suggests in the Schwing reference there's a theoretical benefit that's of little consequence. As I said, it's surmise, none of us can know for sure.

Jay

Although I have found it interesting reading the reasons why certain features may be of poor design according to a knowledgable and experienced smith, I would find it even more interesting learning which manufacturers and designs he considers the best and why. That way I will know what to look for the next time I am in the market for a new gun and perhaps I can avoid some of the pitfalls Dewey has mentioned.

The timing of this post is perfect. I was at a rife range early this morning to correct the ills of a bad tumble last November and I noticed (while being beaten silly by over 20-rounds old Weatherby technology) that I had the only wood-stocked rifle on the range. Canvasback has done his work well.

My support of L.C Smith shotguns is based looks, fit, feel and accuracy. I guess everyone on this board has a favorite mine is a Smith. Anyone want to sell me there junky High Grade Smith I'm your man.
KWD

I don't have much experience with LC Smith guns I've owned about 5 and still have 2. I disassembled an old 20 ga a friend was going to through out and discovered it was my brother's gun he had loaned someone for a USO show in the 60's and never got back.
Regarding Dewey's comments on the inside of the two I have had open, he is right on about the gun's design and manufacture.
I find I can shoot my "NO Grade Custom Order" 12ga at trap and break as many as I can concentrate on. The gun shoots very good patterns and is now 102 years old. It is deadly on doves.
All of this calls to mind a conversation I had many years ago with an Olympic shooter and a Hammerli rep. He asked the man the life span of the gun in rounds fired. The Hammerli guy looked at him like he had a 3rd eye. Joe went on to ask him if it fired the typical 60 rounds a week in the European shooters regimen,how long would it last? Then he pulled out a Hammerli with a mushroomed bolt. Joe commented that would not happen to a Smith 41 in a million rounds.
I got an earful about American guns being made as tools to never see the inside of a repair facility while the English might fire 10,000 rounds in the "season", they went back to the gunmaker every year for renewal.
This is not as true today as it was 100 years ago but we have to realize that the shooting level of the general populace was very high then. Then, shooting match reports were a feature of the front pages of many urban newspapers and most everyone could tell you about Capt. Bogardus and Annie Oakley.
The guns of the day were made as well as they could make them and
sell them at a profit. Same as today.
I like the Parker guns but I shoot the Lefever or LC Smith better.
Just my $0.02.

Character and soul... Ducati and Triumph owners have been trotting out that tired excuse for years. Machines, like humans, have no soul. Anthropomorphizing of machinery is
a weak substitute for comprehension.

If you're going to call someone out on what they "haven't done", you might be willing to share some examples of your work.

You are in no position to know what I have, or have not produced.

LOL! Sadly Lloyd, never involved with firearms except on a personal level.

If you have bought my product, then sales and marketing guys like me love it. But if you are onto the other guys stuff, it's a [censored]. Because facts will have little influence.

Sorry.