The L.C. Smith Collectors Association

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

1st year Fulton gun

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on March 5, 2025, 10:09 am

Gentlemen:

Is a 1st year Fulton gun (made in 1890) actually considered to be a Fulton gun or a Syracuse-designed gun built in Fulton? It looks nothing like the guns made in Fulton afterwards, even by the next year (1891).

I have read (in several places) that 1st year guns were made up from parts and actions brought over from Syracuse, is that accurate?

Next question, is an early Fulton gun stocked in English walnut?

Re: 1st year Fulton gun

Posted by David Williamson on March 5, 2025, 12:59 pm, in reply to "1st year Fulton gun"

Lloyd, I have studied the Syracuse line of L.C. Smiths for close to 20 years and from my research when Lyman sold the company to John Hunter in 1889 machinery was shipped to Fulton along with unfinished guns. Syracuse guns now being sold in Fulton will have the squared lug, raised convex ribs, hour glass ebony inset for-ends that are wide, European walnut, lowest grade made, Quality 2 had 22 lines per inch checkering. Many will not have a makers name on center top rib. They were offered in Syracuse with three different frame weights. Quality 2 had Good Damascus steel barrels and the Quality 7 had Finest Damascus. The early made Fulton guns did not have the squared lug, now rounded, many still had the hour glass ebony insert, most had European walnut and that changed sometime in 1894-95 to the lower grades having American walnut. The No.1 came out in 1890 and it copied the Quality 2 of Fulton in some respects, except they now offered barrel lengths of 26-32" whereas Syracuse only offered 30 and 32" barrels. By then the for-ends became more narrow the hour glass ebony inset was changed to a diamond shape insert and many still did not have a makers name on the barrels. This is for the hammerless guns, hammer guns a little different in their make-up and years made.

Re: 1st year Fulton gun

Posted by Lloyd Mckissick on March 6, 2025, 8:26 am, in reply to "Re: 1st year Fulton gun"

Thank you so-much Mr. Williamson! So...this square lugged and elaborately shaped Quality 2 is indeed a "Syracuse" gun that happened to be made in Futon? If I remember correctly, Houchins even mentions in his tome that these guns were included in with Syracuse production numbers.

I just heard that this gun is headed back my way from Terry Nicholson after a complete overhaul (evidently, it's 1st ever), deep cleaning and a
re-checkering. Really looking forward to seeing it again.

Re: 1st year Fulton gun

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on March 6, 2025, 1:22 pm, in reply to "Re: 1st year Fulton gun"

Nothing written on the tops of these "Good Damascus" tubes. Talk about tasteful sculpting and engraving!

22-lines per inch checkering on a sound & lovely English walnut stock, just as Mr. Williamson predicted.

SN-30430 will be back here soon.

Re: 1st year Fulton gun

Posted by Tom Garver on March 6, 2025, 2:14 pm, in reply to "Re: 1st year Fulton gun"

Lloyd, is this a XX or XXX gun?

Re: 1st year Fulton gun

Posted by Lloyd Mckissick on March 6, 2025, 6:53 pm, in reply to "Re: 1st year Fulton gun"

Mr. Garver, not to my knowledge.

Re: 1st year Fulton gun

Posted by Lloyd Mckissick on March 7, 2025, 1:00 pm, in reply to "1st year Fulton gun"

Mr. Garver: Tried to look up the "XX" or "XXX" designation on these guns in the Houchins book (& elsewhere) and couldn't find anything about them. I know I've read about this type of designation somewhere in the past but...I just can't find that reference. To my knowledge, there are no markings on the gun like this.

Re: 1st year Fulton gun

Posted by Ken Descovich on March 7, 2025, 3:19 pm, in reply to "Re: 1st year Fulton gun"

Lloyd if you are a member here you can request from Jim by serial number what grade is shown in the records. I have a grade 4 that is shown in the records as a XX grade.

Re: 1st year Fulton gun

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on March 7, 2025, 3:46 pm, in reply to "Re: 1st year Fulton gun"

Ken: Thanks, but that's already happened a while ago now. It's a Quality 2 gun for sure.

I think now that I read about the XXX guns in Jim's Stubbendieck's last book in the subject (Production Records). I just have to find it here (I seem to be swimming in books anymore).

Lloyd

Re: 1st year Fulton gun

Posted by Lloyd Mckissick on March 7, 2025, 5:43 pm, in reply to "1st year Fulton gun"

Yep, found that book and the XXX guns are mentioned on page 42.

This gun is clearly in that date and serial number range but...I can't remember seeing much on the barrel flats or under the tubes other than the number 2 and the serial number.

It'll be here next week and I'll look at it again to see if I missed anything.

Re: 1st year Fulton gun

Posted by David Williamson on March 8, 2025, 7:01 am, in reply to "Re: 1st year Fulton gun"

Very interesting gun, to call this a Syracuse gun made in Fulton, I don't believe so. It has all the attributes of a Syracuse gun except I have never seen a Syracuse gun with slanted breech balls, they were all rounded. The barrel steel looks correct for Syracuse and unfinished barrels of this type were probably sent with other parts to Fulton in late 1889. The serial number is too high for a Syracuse gun which stopped at around 23,553 from my records which has on the center rib L.C. Smith Maker, Syracuse, N.Y. Guns after this have no maker's name on barrels. The nautilus style of lock plate engraving was a Syracuse thing and carried over in the beginning of Fulton. Yours has the large convex ribs which Fulton later made them more narrow and finally stopped. I don't know when because I haven't followed the early Fulton guns.
Does your for-end tip have the hour-glass shaped ebony tip or the diamond? Syracuse guns all had the hour-glass ones.
Fulton made like Syracuse guns started using Stub Twist barrels for Quality 2 guns, which Syracuse did not, they used what they called Good Damascus in their catalogs.

Re: 1st year Fulton gun

Posted by Tom Garver on March 8, 2025, 1:34 pm, in reply to "Re: 1st year Fulton gun"

Lloyd, here is SN 30041, a 10 gauge with Fine damascus barrels. The "XXX" is stamped in both barrels. The attached letter explains this gun except Dr. Jim states it's of undetermined grade. The oddity is that the engraving is of Quality 3 style and the inside of the receiver is stamped 3 but Quality 3 guns only became available in 1894. Another member has SN 30036 with the same anomaly

Re: 1st year Fulton gun

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on March 8, 2025, 1:40 pm, in reply to "Re: 1st year Fulton gun"

David: Here's the forend for the gun pre re-do. The checkering has been recut and the ebony tip has been repaired. I've never seen a Futon gun that had a forend like this. That escutcheon is pretty wild.

Re: 1st year Fulton gun

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on March 8, 2025, 1:57 pm, in reply to "Re: 1st year Fulton gun"

Mr. Garver:

Lovely gun. There's no missing those stamped x's is there?

Re: 1st year Fulton gun

Posted by David Williamson on March 8, 2025, 2:20 pm, in reply to "Re: 1st year Fulton gun"

Tom thanks for posting the pictures and the letter. I believe this gun was made in 1889 and could have been one of the last ones made in Syracuse but not serial numbered in Syracuse or the Hunter Bros. told Syracuse to start the serial numbers at 30,000 of their last inventory of guns and parts.
It seems kind of odd that if Fulton did serial number these early guns how come they could not put a their name on the barrels!
This gun is a Syracuse gun, no doubt, has the large breech balls and is a Quality 3. I also believe the records were lost for these early guns in the later part of 1889.

Tom does this gun have the hour-glass ebony for-end?

Re: 1st year Fulton gun

Posted by David Williamson on March 8, 2025, 2:27 pm, in reply to "Re: 1st year Fulton gun"

Lloyd, the higher grades in Syracuse used ivory for the for-end escutcheons. Some of the lower grades were metal and other materials.

Re: 1st year Fulton gun

Posted by Tom Garver on March 9, 2025, 7:23 pm, in reply to "Re: 1st year Fulton gun"

Gentlemen, I have attached a photo of SN 30041 and SN 30148 which is a Quality 2 12 gauge. I removed the forend metal from the wood on both to refresh my memory that the wood is original to both. I'm almost positive that the #2 forend is correct to those guns and only those guns as I've at least 6 others and have never seen it on any other grade.

The differences that I noticed is the Quality 2 has larger concave ribs, the rib isn't stamped and it has the bell shaped forend tip. The "XXX" has the pointed tip and the top rib is stamped "Hunter Arms Co., Fulton, NY

Re: 1st year Fulton gun

Posted by David Williamson on March 10, 2025, 5:14 am, in reply to "Re: 1st year Fulton gun"

Thanks Tom, the for-end wood on the Syracuse guns is wider than the Fulton guns. Also Syracuse guns did not have the dog escutcheon but as shown some of the transition Syracuse ones did have the double like diamond escutcheon and like shown had the large convex ribs.
Bell-shaped ebony tip is a good term, for some reason I said hour-glass, don' know what I was thinking.

Re: 1st year Fulton gun

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on March 10, 2025, 11:57 am, in reply to "Re: 1st year Fulton gun"

Interesting. I could see Mr. Garver's guns earlier? Not sure what happened there?

No matter, my 1890 Quality 2 gun (SN 30430) looks identical to Mr. Garver's 1889 Quality 2 SN 30041 "Syracuse" gun. It has the "vase" shaped ebony tip, the diamond-shaped escutcheon on it's forend, the large "concave" ribs (the British would call these "drooping bars") and the Syracuse Quality 2 style of engraving. It has the "square" barrel lug and the action is sculpted much like gun #30041.

The top gun here is an 1891 Quality 1 gun.

It also has a fairly well-figured English walnut stock (but with the later "double-dog" buttplate), and, depending on your perspective, the breech balls seem more rounded and full when seen from the side and the top. Later Smith guns (even by only a few years) look almost nothing like this.

I'm not sure what more it needs it be considered a "Syracuse" style of Smith gun except for the fact that it was assembled in Fulton during their 1st year of production? There are some differences, but they are very slight. C'mon Dave...

Re: 1st year Fulton gun

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on March 10, 2025, 12:34 pm, in reply to "Re: 1st year Fulton gun"

Oops, 30148 is the Quality 2 gun of Mr. Garver's that I'm talking about, not his Quality 3 10-bore.

The sequence of these posts is getting confusing.
Mr. Garver, what does your butt plate look like on 30148?

Re: 1st year Fulton gun

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on March 10, 2025, 3:01 pm, in reply to "Re: 1st year Fulton gun"

Ahh, the mysteries of "Transition" period guns.

The top gun is my 1891 Quality 1 gun, the bottom is the 1890 Quality 2 we've been discussing here. Only one year later and these Fulton-produced guns look very different (at least to my eyes). The action base is noticeably wider on the Quality 1 gun, with the "convex ribs" on the bottom being much-diminished. The Syracuse "square" barrel lug of 1890 is now the "rounded front" version of 1891 (and that all Fulton-made Smith guns had, going forward from this date) and...with the breech balls being very-much angled indeed (as Mr. Williamson had noted here earlier). Even the trigger guard sits more-rearward on this more "Fulton-like" action (you can't see the screw in front of the trigger guard on the 1890 Quality 2 gun, I'm not sure it even has one). Overall, these two "actions" look very different to me. The "geometry" is certainly quite different between these two guns. In my humble opinion, one is more "Syracuse" and the other is much more "Fulton".

The forend wood is quite different as well (with no decorative "escutcheon" on the 1891 gun). The 1890 gun's forend is much-longer than the Number 1 gun's (not sure about wider). Both have the "bell" shaped ebony insert that Mr. Williamson described so aptly here earlier as well. Sadly, the 1891 gun's ebony was reshaped improperly when it was repaired 2-years ago now (it was flattened instead if rounded). We're all learning, right?

The dimensions and weight of both guns is nearly identical (7lbs13), as are their chokes (everything is modified). The 1891 gun has "Laminated Steel" barrels and the Quality 2 gun has "Good Damascus" (which closely resembles "Chain-Damascus" to me now that they've been cleaned up a little).

Mr. Williamson also mentioned that 3-different frame sizes were available in Syracuse(?). I'd love to know what difference that would have made on the total weight of these two guns (I'm guessing both are the "bigger" size, at nearly 8-lbs each?)

Re: 1st year Fulton gun

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on March 11, 2025, 10:25 am, in reply to "Re: 1st year Fulton gun"

My 1891 Quality 1 sitting next to a circa 1940 Featherweight gun at the Colorado Vintagers Polar Bear shoot here last January. While both are 12s, a regular-frame gun would be a more-representative comparison here, but this will serve. There are some clear differences here, but they aren't as stark as they would be compared to my 1890 Quality 2 gun.

Both guns have the now standard "rounded-front" Fulton barrel lug (the Featherweight's is clearly much smaller), the forend iron is also narrower and seemingly deeper as well on the Featherweight, the breech balls are very different (the '91s are clearly more-angled), and the lower straps are different as well (one screw versus two), the 1940 gun has the now-classic Fulton "flat" bottom of all the post-transitional Smith guns, but notice that the frame geometry of the guns is almost identical (look at where the triggers are set in relation to the body of the action). Compare where the screws are in front of the trigger-guards in relation to the main body frame. They are in identical locations. The "Syracuse" variant of these Smith guns are not (see the earlier side-by-side comparison photographs above here). The trigger/action/stock geometry is noticeably different.

Clearly, the stocks on these guns are quite different as well (a round-knob versus a capped pistol grip) and the more modern gun has fluid-steel tubes (& American walnut).

All of these points are fairly-trivial in the scheme of things, but...they highlight the differences between the multiple eras of LC Smith gun production (in this case, post-1913 guns and the much earlier [nearly 50-years] "transitional" Fulton guns. The Hunter Brothers took the almost "boutique" master & apprentice production process in Syracuse and then scaled it up for a more streamlined (& efficient) process at Fulton. Post-1913, they "streamlined" it even further for true "mass-production" and the guns reflect those changes.

Re: 1st year Fulton gun

Posted by David Williamson on March 11, 2025, 11:44 am, in reply to "Re: 1st year Fulton gun"

Lloyd, for Hunter Arms Co. it was all about cost. Find a true Syracuse gun in the serial number range of 16,000, 18,000, 19,000, 20,000 and early 22,000. The odd numbers were hammer guns. The latest Syracuse hammerless gun I have in my records is 23553 that has L.C. Smith Maker, Syracuse, N.Y. on center rib. The reason I said some early 22,000 serial numbers is because I have some in this range that do not have a makers name on barrel.
The joint check was one thing that was eliminated at Fulton because that was definetly a cost factor , but they opened much farther and made shell extraction and loading so much easier. The large raised convex ribs, the machining that went into that. There were other factors also.

Re: 1st year Fulton gun

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on March 11, 2025, 12:41 pm, in reply to "Re: 1st year Fulton gun"

I don't know David, this 1890 gun seems to have more than just a passing resemblance to a "true" Syracuse gun (at least as far as you seem to have defined one).

What's the difference between this Quality 2 and Mr. Garver's 1889 gun (which you identified earlier in this thread as a being "true" Syracuse example)?

The hard-data on these transitional-period guns is clearly, pretty spotty (w/lots of missing years of information it seems) and you mentioned yourself earlier that these were "not the years that you focused on" in your still very-impressive body of research. The numbers and dates for these guns continues to change when "new data" (from previously unknown guns) becomes confirmed.

For me, at least from what I can visually confirm and understand, I'm going to call this Quality 2 unit a "Syracuse" Elsie. You can certainly still talk me out of that, but from what you've mentioned so-far, I'm just not convinced that I'm wrong.

Re: 1st year Fulton gun

Posted by David Williamson on March 11, 2025, 3:42 pm, in reply to "Re: 1st year Fulton gun"

Lloyd, if your gun does not have L.C. Smith Maker, Syracuse, N.Y. on the center rib it is not a true Syracuse Gun Company gun if it didn't have those serial numbers I listed. Plus I have never seen a Syracuse gun with the two pointing setters butt plate. And again the breech balls were rounded not slanted. The two screw trigger guard is common on the early guns. Some workers from Syracuse stayed on assembling parts that were gathered from the factory, but these were all serial numbered and most likely with a makers name on the barrels and is possible sold through them, others were sent to Fulton with no makers name and Hunter Arms sold them as is.

Think what you want but if I saw this gun I would not think it as a true Syracuse gun without those serial numbers.

Re: 1st year Fulton gun

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on March 11, 2025, 5:16 pm, in reply to "Re: 1st year Fulton gun"

David: Let me see if I 'm getting all this right.

A gun might have had all of its components sourced from Syracuse, NY and is physically "identical" (same tubes, same wood & frame-shape, and with identical appurtenant features to the earlier guns (same stop-checks, bushed firing pins, same engraving, same forend features and with identical overall dimensions) to the firearms being manufactured before the change of ownership to the Hunter Brothers, and yet it is "not" considered to be a Syracuse-sourced gun because it does not have the proper range of serial numbers affixed to it and it does not say "LC Smith, Maker, Syracuse, N. Y. on it's tubes? How very interesting.

From a purely "legal" perspective you are wholly correct. Different "owners" and then a different "place of origin" (when manufactured) will determine that "strictly-legal" distinction. As a practical matter, however, they are (or were) for at-least the first year of production in Fulton, NY, very-much the same as the guns being produced prior to the sale of the company by Lyman C. Smith.

Call me a heretic, but to the modern-day owners and users of these lovely old artifacts, that legal-distinction will have very-little meaning. Perhaps there are some "bragging-rights" associated with that "identity", and even some minor economic advantage might be gleaned by having "the genuine article" for sale, but little else seems to apply here.

Re: 1st year Fulton gun

Posted by David Williamson on March 11, 2025, 7:48 pm, in reply to "Re: 1st year Fulton gun"

Lloyd, to most not knowing it will not make a difference, for those that know it will.

As to your second paragraph, Hunter Arms had no idea of what to produce so they followed what was sent and went from there and in the stipulation between Lyman and John Hunter, the guns had to be called L.C. Smith. As for the latter years, changes had to be made because of cost and the "nice" features had to go.

Would you take a latter made Leonard Baby Catskill 7 ft. 3 wgt. over an original one and say "well it is the same rod", same color windings etc."? Not the same.

Re: 1st year Fulton gun

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on March 12, 2025, 7:31 am, in reply to "Re: 1st year Fulton gun"

David: If Tom Maxwell happened to make my later Leonard, I would say that it was arguably a better rod than the early variants. The price would certainly reflect that reality.

I happen to own some older Leonards (an early Model 66, a Model 50 1/2, and a Model 51). The oldest one (the 51) is not the superior rod in the group.

Re: 1st year Fulton gun

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on March 13, 2025, 9:38 am, in reply to "Re: 1st year Fulton gun"

I've taken the time to digest all of the arguments, pro & con, for counting later Syracuse gun production (after the deal to sell the company was finalized and before any "new" gun designs were instituted in Fulton, at sometime in early 1891).

I know that Mr. Williamson here has theorized that all "real" Syracuse hammerless gun production ended sometime (midyear?) in 1898 at SN 23553, but there were (according to Houchins and confirmed in Mr. Stubbendieck's latest book on Production Records) at least 1,362 additional guns recorded that were produced over those roughly 2 1/2 intervening years. These guns do not have "LC Smith - Maker" stamped on their top ribs, but they were as much a part of the total Syracuse production as any of the guns produced during the "official" years (1886 to 1898) of hammerless gun production (as these later guns were all based and built on the same Alexander T. Brown designs and all used primary components [wood, barrels & actions] largely sourced in Syracuse, NY prior to the sale of the company to the Hunter Brothers). Arguments otherwise, at least here so-far, have not been comprehensive to my mind, or fully persuasive.

The arbitrary date and serial number cut-offs proposed here are neither logical nor practical, given the vast unknowns we're already aware of in the formal company records remaining from that period of history.

Re: 1st year Fulton gun

Posted by David Williamson on March 13, 2025, 10:55 am, in reply to "Re: 1st year Fulton gun"

Lloyd I was not going to answer any more about this, you have your mind set and I have my research. First off, it is 1888 not 1898. That last serial number I gave 23533 is most likely from some time in 1888.
The first year the hammerless gun was produced was in late August 1886 only 15 made, and the total to the end of December of that year was 281. That averages to 56 hammerless guns per month. For a full year let's use 80 hammerless gun made per month from 1887-1888. that is a total of 1,920, but it wouldn't be for the whole year of 1888.
I don't know where they got 1362 additional guns unless they added hammer guns, and it was not 2 1/2 years but less than 1 year (company sold in sometime in 1888, Hunter Arms STARTED IN 1889 not 1890 as stated in Houchins book and others. It was also stated that John Hunter had a building erected in Fulton, he did not, it was an old building that workers stated when heavy winds blew the building swayed. A plumb bob from the highest floor to the ground had an 18" gap.
In the Fulton Patriot News of 1898 a reporter interviewed John Hunter Jr. and he stated the first year 1889 they produced 3,000 guns and by 1898 they were hoping for 12,000 a year.

One other thing, if you look at the Research letter that Tom Garver received, it states his gun was finished in January 1890. They must have been very fast workers to finish that gun if Hunter Arms Gun Co. started in 1890! Seems to me those records are lost.

Also about the comparison on the Leonard rod, it was an example of ONE particular rod on what went into it and of the silk windings not a list of other rods and how good Tom Maxwell built rods, I don't think he was as good as Ted Simroe.
I won't be talking anymore about fishing rods, if you want to carry it on more email me @ jdavidw1@comcast.net

Re: 1st year Fulton gun

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on March 13, 2025, 12:35 pm, in reply to "Re: 1st year Fulton gun"

There is an error in my previous post.

1886 to 1888 (& not '98) is the more-commonly referenced period of production for hammerless guns in Syracuse.

When you compare the total production of guns from Syracuse to the output from the Fulton plant, the numbers are staggering. Houchins counts the early years at Fulton (1890-1892) in with the total production numbers for the Syracuse hammerless guns and even with that, he only lists a total of 1,595 guns produced. That, of course, makes the survivors of this rather-short period of time quite unusual, and arguably "rare" and collectable (and accordingly...more valuable). These firearms are artifacts from a very brief and unique period of history in this country. Things were simply made quite differently then.

After production ramped up in Fulton, however, total production comes in at several thousand(s) of guns (still looking to confirm that total number). In order to produce such a large number (and as Mr. Williamson previously mentions here earlier) lots of the "nicer" components of the earlier LC Smith guns had to be dispensed with.

These later guns (mainly post-1913) can still be quite lovely (and certainly quite functional!). For me, however, they lack a component of the "gunmaker's art" that I have become shall-we-say more-accustomed to (mainly by shooting mostly English guns for the last 25-year now). It's these "earlier" guns that I find so intriguing and ultimately, so attractive.

Re: 1st year Fulton gun

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on March 13, 2025, 12:47 pm, in reply to "Re: 1st year Fulton gun"

David:

I looks like we got our posts crossed-up a little (yours was up when I had finished my last one).

We all stand on "the shoulders of giants here" and I count your work in with the rest of those "giants". You clearly have great insights into this subject and certainly I meant no disrespect.

Ted Simroe's Leonard rods are clearly very nice as well, no question. I just happened to see more of Tom Maxwell's rods in the shop I worked in here in Denver.

Re: 1st year Fulton gun

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on March 13, 2025, 2:16 pm, in reply to "Re: 1st year Fulton gun"

Just found that "total production" number in Houchins book. On page 519 he says that 500,710 guns total were made (all makers and all types). I was going to say "half a million" earlier here but I wanted keep from being too-speculative.

Compare that to the miniscule numbers of guns that were completed in Syracuse (Houchins says 6,223, which includes both hammered & hammerless guns) and you get a sense of just how unusual a true "Syracuse" LC Smith gun really is.

Re: 1st year Fulton gun

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on March 15, 2025, 11:55 am, in reply to "Re: 1st year Fulton gun"

The crux of my argument.

A "flat-bottomed" Fulton gun on the left (1901 "D" Hammer) and the heavy frame bolsters of a Syracuse-derived Quality 2 gun from 1890 (1st year at Fulton). Mr. Williamson is correct here. The breech balls are more angled than on the earlier Syracuse guns (page 88 in Houchins book makes that distinction fairly clear).

Re: 1st year Fulton gun

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on March 15, 2025, 1:08 pm, in reply to "Re: 1st year Fulton gun"

"In for a penny, in for a pound", eh?

Much like the earlier Syracuse guns, all the screwheads on this gun are rounded, not flat (like all the later Fulton guns seem to be).

But, unlike the earlier guns, this one has the now infamous "Gutta Percha" double-dog buttplate and capped pistol grip. Later guns used "Bakelite" derived buttcaps.

I'm loving how this forend turned out...

« Back to index

422

[ The L.C. Smith Collectors Association ]