The L.C. Smith Collectors Association

The L.C. Smith Collectors Association
[ The L.C. Smith Collectors Association ]

1891 Quality 1 gun

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on March 6, 2024, 7:02 pm

It's come home.

Re: 1891 Quality 1 gun

Posted by Dan Wildhaber on March 6, 2024, 9:45 pm, in reply to "1891 Quality 1 gun"

Beautiful Lloyd.
Understated elegance.

Re: 1891 Quality 1 gun

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on March 6, 2024, 11:21 pm, in reply to "1891 Quality 1 gun"

Thankyou Dan, appreciate that.

I was looking at an OO Grade gun when I ran across this one. It had been identified as an "O" grade gun from 1891 but...it didn't look quite right to me. It certainly reminds me of the later Field Grade guns but something was different to my eye.

That top rib has a specific name for it in the advertising I've seen from the later periods at Fulton. It was something like the "Special Smith broad-target rib" or something along those lines. Can anybody here remember the name they used for it in their write-ups about the guns?

Almost all the later Smiths I've seen used it as well, so it's certainly not unusual, but it is uniquely LC Smith in my mind.

Re: 1891 Quality 1 gun

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on March 7, 2024, 8:48 am, in reply to "Re: 1891 Quality 1 gun"

I've looked through some of the Smith advertising listed here and found the one about the "Single Sighting Plane" that I was probably thinking about, but that was much later (1930s?) and more pronounced. When you're used to British guns, you become accustomed to the "game" and "swamped" ribs they generally employed. These Smith guns seem to have their own unique variant, almost a "target" rib.

Re: 1891 Quality 1 gun

Posted by Dan Wildhaber on March 7, 2024, 1:04 pm, in reply to "Re: 1891 Quality 1 gun"

Lloyd
I'm not the guy to ask about advertising; I'm a bit weak on that.
There was a lot of changes going on in that era which makes them so much more interesting. Some are probably almost one offs, not the cookie cutter stuff they were making later on.
I believe they figured out pretty quickly that they couldn't make a profit while providing that kind of
quality and workmanship at that level.
It certainly didn't hurt their reputation as gun makers though

Re: 1891 Quality 1 gun

Posted by Mike Yonker on March 7, 2024, 1:26 pm, in reply to "1891 Quality 1 gun"

Maybe a question for Dr. Drew to chime in on,What Damascus type is the barrels on this? Thanks MY

Laminated Steel

Posted by Drew Hause on March 7, 2024, 2:01 pm, in reply to "Re: 1891 Quality 1 gun"

Good eye Mike. Lloyd's Laminated Steel is not the usual that one would expect on the U.S. maker's gun c. 1890

Lloyd's, which some English makers referred to as "Angularly Laminated"

Do the barrels carry the Birmingham Provisional Proof mark?

Re: Laminated Steel

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on March 7, 2024, 2:41 pm, in reply to "Laminated Steel "

I believe they do Dr. Drew...

Re: Laminated Steel

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on March 7, 2024, 2:46 pm, in reply to "Re: Laminated Steel "

Different lighting and a better contrast shot:

Birmingham Proof

Posted by Drew Hause on March 7, 2024, 2:53 pm, in reply to "Re: Laminated Steel "

Thanks Lloyd. The Laminated Steel tubes used by U.S. makers were usually sourced in Birmingham. Unfortunately, I've never seen barrels which retains a maker's mark/initials.

Re: Birmingham Proof

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on March 7, 2024, 6:36 pm, in reply to "Birmingham Proof"

Just took it out and shot it. It's going to be a fine target gun (which was my intention all along).

Re: Birmingham Proof

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on March 12, 2024, 9:21 am, in reply to "Re: Birmingham Proof"

Dr. Drew:

I believe I found the reference that you used to identify the "angularly laminated" variant here. A good read indeed.

From reviewing Houchin's book, it would seem that most early Quality 1 guns were "twist" barreled, such as this 1890 example:

As far as visual appearance, this "angularly laminated steel" isn't nearly as attractive to me as good Damascus (or even "Twist" for that matter) but it is likely a wee-bit stronger. Most English laminated steels were up to 75% steel. I believe W.W. Greener called it "Silver Steel" Damascus, and (of-course) he took credit for creating it and then using it on many Greener guns.

Re: Birmingham Proof

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on March 14, 2024, 10:12 am, in reply to "Re: Birmingham Proof"

Shot this gun yesterday (in advance of the latest spring storm here)

What a difference a day makes, eh?

Re: 1891 Quality 1 gun

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on March 22, 2024, 11:11 am, in reply to "Re: 1891 Quality 1 gun"

Perhaps the gun I should've bought..

An 1890 Quality 2 gun. Nice.

Re: 1891 Quality 1 gun

Posted by David Williamson on March 22, 2024, 12:26 pm, in reply to "Re: 1891 Quality 1 gun"

Llyod that last picture with the 2 on the re-enforcing wedge means it had an extra set of barrels made for it.
Those barrels have the squared rectangular lug like the guns Syracuse had and some of the very early Fulton guns as the serial number shows.

Re: 1891 Quality 1 gun

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on March 22, 2024, 12:31 pm, in reply to "Re: 1891 Quality 1 gun"

David:

Thankyou! I had thought that it was a Grade designator. Other than being built in Fulton, what differentiates this gun from a Syracuse-produced Grade 2?

Re: 1891 Quality 1 gun

Posted by David Williamson on March 22, 2024, 3:37 pm, in reply to "Re: 1891 Quality 1 gun"

The engraving for one, plus all Syracuse guns had some type of forend escutcheon either a round 7/8" ebony piece with a dogs head or a diamond shaped ebony, and on the higher grades ivory. The checkering was finer lines per inch even on the lowest Qlty 2 it was 20-22 lpi. the large convex ribs on the early Fulton guns disappeared due to cost. The joint check was gone around 1898, again due to cost. To me and others I think it was a great feature as it allowed to gun to open up farther. Hunter Arms did try another joint check around 1914 but it didn't last long. There is a little flat spring inside and if that breaks I was told it becomes very hard to take the barrels from the receiver.

Re: 1891 Quality 1 gun

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on March 23, 2024, 10:00 am, in reply to "Re: 1891 Quality 1 gun"

You mean like this?

Re: 1891 Quality 1 gun

Posted by David Williamson on March 23, 2024, 10:23 am, in reply to "Re: 1891 Quality 1 gun"

Something like that except the Syracuse ones that I remember were thinner at the waist. I'll see if I can find some pictures.

Re: 1891 Quality 1 gun

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on March 25, 2024, 12:30 pm, in reply to "Re: 1891 Quality 1 gun"

David:

I bought this Quality 2 gun. Almost identical dimensions to my Quality 1 gun (hopefully redundant now). If all my bamboo rods finally sell I'll be looking for a hammergun too.

Re: 1890 Quality 2 gun

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on March 25, 2024, 12:38 pm, in reply to "Re: 1891 Quality 1 gun"

If I hadn't just gone through the 1891 gun re-do, I wouldn't have-had the confidence to buy something like this online. Looks all-original and even... well cared-for, double-dog buttplate and all.

If this all works out, my Quality 1 gun will likely become "surplus to needs" (I believe that's the millitary term for it).

Re: 1890 Quality 2 gun

Posted by Stephen Sipprell on March 26, 2024, 6:57 pm, in reply to "Re: 1890 Quality 2 gun"

Hi Lloyd,
I spoke with the seller of SN30430 (Dustin?) back in November of last year, and I am fairly certain that the barrels have been cut down from 32" to 29-3/4" (the chokes are mod/mod now). Its a very pretty gun. I am happy that it found a good home.
Best,
Stephen

Re: 1890 Quality 2 gun

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on March 27, 2024, 11:18 am, in reply to "Re: 1890 Quality 2 gun"

Steve:

Ok, for what he was asking I just couldn't pass it up. Hopefully the bob-job was executed well?

Re: 1890 Quality 2 gun

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on March 27, 2024, 2:01 pm, in reply to "Re: 1890 Quality 2 gun"

Mr. Sipprell:

Did you ever actually see photographs of the muzzles for this gun(?) & moreover...do you have any sense of it's history? Whatever you could relate to me would be appreciated.

And...really, unless somebody made a complete hash of it, modified chokes on a 29 3/4-inch set of tubes will work perfectly for my intentions (assuming the rest of the dimensions mimic my current Quality 1). There are a few other Elsie fans attending the Rocky Mountain Vintagers event in Whittington (this coming April 26th) and it'll be great fun to compare & contrast as few of these very-early guns over drinks during the evening events (I suspect that a few of the English gun guys will be balefully watching over our shoulders while we're doing it?). It's been quite a blessing to have these curious old Smith guns to look into during my extended convalescence (for a badly broken ankle). The history of these guns is so...damnedably-convoluted. A great example of capitalism at it's finest eh (or...maybe not?). The later guns sort-of miss me (I'm too-used to the British stuff now), but these earlier ones are pretty interesting and even artfully executed(!).

If they're not America's "Best" guns then they're certainly right up there with whomever might be a little better (Lefevers, Parkers?) but, no matter...I'm enjoying the ride.

Re: 1890 Quality 2 gun

Posted by David Williamson on March 27, 2024, 2:48 pm, in reply to "Re: 1890 Quality 2 gun"

If those barrels were 32" and cut to 29 3/4" they would be close to bore size. L.C. Smith's were choked 1" parallel and 1 9/16" taper to choke.
If anything there is about 1/4" of taper left.
The only way to see is to use a bore gage and watch the needle near the muzzle.
Be interesting to see.

Re: 1890 Quality 2 gun

Posted by Lloyd Mckissick on March 27, 2024, 3:26 pm, in reply to "Re: 1890 Quality 2 gun"

Thanks David, that's good to know. It would be uncharacteristic for that to have happened to a gun that is seemingly so well-preserved. Again, I won't really know until I can get it down to the shop and measure it fully. I think I just sold other Goodwin Granger/Pflueger fly rod combo so... life is good here yet again.

Re: 1890 Quality 2 gun

Posted by Bill Murphy on April 4, 2024, 10:15 am, in reply to "Re: 1890 Quality 2 gun"

I have a great old Syracuse Grade 1 with those Bernard style barrels and the proof stamp. I was picking up another gun from a man in Culpeper, VA. He showed me this Grade 1 which was missing the forend. He priced it at $100 because "I will never find a forend.". Jim Akins sent me an outrageous high grade fully checkered forend that was a perfect fit. Jerry Andrews sent me a dog inlay that fit perfectly. Both were found on this forum and neither charged me for these favors.

Re: 1890 Quality 2 gun

Posted by Bill Murphy on April 4, 2024, 10:22 am, in reply to "Re: 1890 Quality 2 gun"

I should have described my Grade 1 barrels as Laminated as Drew stated, rather than Bernard as I stated in my previous post. My Syracuse Grade 1 is serial number 35036. Jim S. sent me a note that my gun is in the 1890-1900 book, but forgot to give me the exact date. It is one great gun that oddly, has a brand new, mint buttplate, like the gun has never been hunting. This is the most beautiful buttplate ever seen on an American gun. One is pictured on this thread.

Transition guns

Posted by David Williamson on April 4, 2024, 11:59 am, in reply to "Re: 1890 Quality 2 gun"

These early Fulton gun with the Syracuse attributes are what I call Transition guns. Some came to Fulton as unassembled parts when everything was shipped to Fulton from Syracuse. In 1889 when John Hunter opened Hunter Arms Co. these guns had no maker's name on the barrels and from memory if I am correct the output of guns was 3,000 in 1889. Either the records are lost or there were none.

Re: Transition guns

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on April 5, 2024, 9:04 am, in reply to "Transition guns"

David:

So...production began at Fulton before 1890? That makes sense actually. Everything I've read about the transition is fairly unclear, other than
quoting newspaper articles from the period trumpeting the sale of the company (from Lyman Cornelius to John Hunter) in 1888. From growing-up in the Region (& not all that far from there) I can picture the process unfolding. I'm sure it wasn't pretty.

Hunter Arms Co. 1889

Posted by David Williamson on April 6, 2024, 10:59 am, in reply to "Re: Transition guns"

This is from my research years ago and is copied from the newspaper. I started writing a detailed article about the Syracuse L.C. Smith and then the Hunter Arms Co.

Since starting this article, I have researched more information and have found that the Hunter Arms Company did start production in 1889. The following is from a weekly newspaper The Fulton Patriot, Fulton, New York, Wednesday, April 12, 1899 Number 15.
It gives quite of bit of history that has already been published, but it also gives some that has not. "From the original building, the workers have enlarged from time to time, as necessities compelled, until present time finds them occupying the main structure, 220 x 50 feet four stories in height together with four other small buildings. Output has increased from 3,000 guns in 1889 to a quadrupled volume, and 1899 will show an annual output of twelve thousand (12,000) guns."

Re: Hunter Arms Co. 1889

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on April 8, 2024, 10:22 am, in reply to "Hunter Arms Co. 1889"

3000 guns in 1889? Wow. It sounds like newspapers then were just about as questionable as they are now.

Re: 1890 Quality 2 gun

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on April 30, 2024, 4:44 pm, in reply to "Re: 1890 Quality 2 gun"

Mr. Murphy:

Forgive my late response to your post (in early April), but I got a chance to review Mr. Stubbendieck's book for your serial number (on your Quality 1 gun), 35036 should be an 1892 gun, which makes sense as Syracuse evidently never offered a Quality 1 option. Your gun was likely the last of the transitional Quality 1s.

FWIW: "Bernard" has always been the description I heard used for this type of barrel steel we are now referring to as "laminated".

Re: 1890 Quality 2 gun

Posted by Drew Hause on April 30, 2024, 5:37 pm, in reply to "Re: 1890 Quality 2 gun"

"Bernard ribbon" or "Rubans Royal" (by Manufacture Liegeoise) and has been found on 1892-1897 hammerless No. 1, but which were marked as Laminated Steel. We've also seen the pattern on a 1902 F grade hammer gun.
It is a very different pattern from the Birmingham sourced Laminated Steel used on early No. 1s

Re: 1890 Quality 2 gun

Posted by Lloyd Mckissick on April 30, 2024, 5:51 pm, in reply to "Re: 1890 Quality 2 gun"

I stand corrected yet again. Thank you Dr. Drew.

« Back to index

1144

[ The L.C. Smith Collectors Association ]