The L.C. Smith Collectors Association

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

Questions...

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on April 2, 2025, 3:57 pm

Where has our good Dr. Drew been (on a mission somewhere perhaps?). I had a question about this particular grade of Damascus...

Another question...when did the "drop at heel" for the Fulton guns become less pronounced? 3-inches seems to be "the standard" in the early years, when did that change?

Also, did the earlier hammer guns (pre-Fulton thru the "transitional" period [1890 to 1892-3]) also have a more-pronounced drop at heel?

And finally...I seem to get very few responses to my occasional inquiries here. David Williamson, Dr. Drew, Mr. Stubbendieck (and maybe a few other folks) seem to be about it. Has the cast of characters here become so geriatric that they are incapable of communications? Without any dialog (interesting or otherwise) this board will simply die a protracted death (in fact it seems like it's already well on it's way).

Please tell me I'm wrong about that.

Damascus pattern

Posted by Drew Hause on April 2, 2025, 4:18 pm, in reply to "Questions..."

Hunter Arms catalogs and ads usually referred to that pattern as "Good Damascus" or "Good 3 Blade Damascus" and it is typically found on Quality 2 guns.
It is an "Oxford" crolle pattern and commonly found on U.S. maker's doubles.

2 wavy 'zipper' rod to rod welds between straight ribband edge welds. Note the ribband edge scrolls are compressed

Re: Damascus pattern

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on April 2, 2025, 4:58 pm, in reply to "Damascus pattern"

As usual Dr. Drew, thank you.

Stock dimensions

Posted by Drew Hause on April 2, 2025, 5:43 pm, in reply to "Questions..."

The standard measurements for pre-1913 L. C. Smith shotguns were 1 3/4 inch drop at comb and 3 inch drop at heel.

By the 1920s, these dimensions had changed to 1 5/8" drop at comb and 2 3/4" drop at heel.

After the Single Sighting Plane Rib became standard in 1941 (except on the Long Range Wild Fowl) the standard stock dimensions were 14” X 1 5/8” X 2 5/8”.

All stocks do not have these dimensions because the Hunter Arms Company would make stocks to order.

1920s order form; for a 2 trigger gun. The HOT form had the trigger in the middle position

Live Bird and Inanimate Target competitors at the turn-of-the-century used dimensions very similar to shooters today

Fred Gilbert (1865-1928) was one of the world’s best known shooters from 1895-1915 and used a L.C. Smith to win the DuPont World’s Pigeon Shooting Championship in 1895 and the “E.C.” Inanimate Target Championship Cup in 1896.
The “Fred Gilbert Specifications” were for a drop at comb of 1 3/8 inches; at the heel, 2 inches; length from trigger to heel, 14 1/4 inches; trigger to toe 14 1/2 inches; and trigger to center of butt 14 inches; with a full pistol grip and 30-inch full choke barrels.

Scroll down about 1/2 way for a helpful list of dimensions from a shoot in 1901
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c7UkkNyMTZ9NAztILpzjSLKvgIneAw5i7eqkZ3d3Eno/edit?tab=t.0

Re: Stock dimensions

Posted by Lloyd Mckissick on April 3, 2025, 9:09 am, in reply to "Stock dimensions"

Dr. Drew: As it has now become our "usual conversation", you continue to be a veritable wealth of knowledge. Thank you so-much, yet again. I'm not sure what we'd do without you (either here or elsewhere)?

My 1901 hammergun (sourced from another member here [who is also a font of knowledge]) has about 2 3/4 inches of drop and a noticeably narrower stock. It (accordingly) fits me a little bettter than my hammerless Smith guns (my normal measurements are 1 1/2, 2 1/2, and 14 3/4 [with a bit of cast-on]). Like most folks, I can compensate quite a bit and still shoot allright with a gun that doesn't "exactly" fit me.

From what you have presented here however, I would have to guess that this 1901 gun was ordered that way. Perhaps by the turn of the century, tastes were changing somewhat?

Do you have any idea as to what might have driven those "standard dimensions" in that earlier time?

Re: Stock dimensions

Posted by Lloyd Mckissick on April 3, 2025, 9:17 am, in reply to "Re: Stock dimensions"

Opps, I should have read your attached document first. Sorry about that.

Re: Stock dimensions

Posted by Drew Hause on April 3, 2025, 9:28 am, in reply to "Re: Stock dimensions"

Stock dimensions were aimed to fit the "standard" man.
But
Smith shooter Jack Fanning on L was short.
Smith shooter Wm. Crosby next to him was tall.
The other fellas were "standard" c. 1900

Men today are slightly taller, but much heavier, with a thicker face, chest, and waist.
A thicker chest increases the effective length of pull; a thicker face moves the eye upward from the comb and away from the rib.

24 year old Union soldier in 1860 - 5’ 8” and 143.5#
22 year old American soldier in 1955 - 5' 8" and 150.2#
50th percentile for American 25 year old men in 2002 - 5’ 10” and 168#

All US men 20-74 years in 1960 - 5’ 8” and 166.3#
All US men 20-74 years in 2002 - 5’ 9 1/2” and 191#

Re: Stock dimensions

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on April 3, 2025, 10:13 am, in reply to "Re: Stock dimensions"

That's quite the article (you've referred to it elsewhere before, but it's alot to take in).

I have found (purely by trial & error) that for upland wingshooting (at least for me) the English "straight-hand" stock combined with more-modern dimensions (i.e., "less-drop") works very well. On birds like ruffed grouse, that particular configuration (combined with a very-light (approximately 6-lb gun) seems to be the only "combination" that I can effectively use to regularly kill rapidly departing birds. This type of shooting seems to be "more-instinctive" for me.

For targets, however, the shallow pistol-grip stock seems to work very-well as it allows for more direct "control" of the gun and it also seems to "sop-up" more of the recoil. It very-much reminds me of shooting a rifle (in many ways).

I'll have to try a "Monte-Carlo" type of stock sometime to see if it works at all for me (it's an interesting concept).

Re: Questions...

Posted by Brian Sloan on April 3, 2025, 6:18 pm, in reply to "Questions..."

Mr Lloyd, and all LC Smith guys. I'm fairly new to collecting and I check this site daily. I read everything posted and love seeing pics of other people's gems. Wether fields or monograms. I think a lot of collectors feel no one cares about thier story's, thier guns, thier wins, or even thier mistakes. I like anything posted about a Smith. I hope this encourages conversation. I've been trying to figure out how to liven up our association. The best thing o can come up with is introduce kids to our sport. Is there any youth divisions? I've not seen any. Yes they may lose money for a bit but we may lose it all without them.

Re: Questions...

Posted by Lloyd Mckissick on April 5, 2025, 6:48 pm, in reply to "Re: Questions..."

Mr. Sloan: As much as I hate to admit it, the world has moved-on from many of the "treasures" of the baby-boomer generation. Getting more kids involved in shooting and hunting couldn't hurt but...I can't see how that will change much at this point.

When this country was more agrarian, people had both the places and the time to go afield with a decent doublegun. Doing that these days (at least in the industrialized [& crowded] east and west coasts) is getting pretty tough to do (even for the well-heeled). I don't have a crystal ball, so I can't see how all this is resolved (or even if it can be). Unless you have been born into a hunting (& shooting) family, none of this will mean anything to you as a younger person.

My collage-aged son was raised with all the guns and hunting he could ever hope to want and he's lukewarm about it all at-best. Computers, and cars, and cloths, and girls, and you-name-it have a much bigger grasp on him right now. He might come to better appreciate it some day but...we'll have to see about that.

Re: Questions...

Posted by John Kuhn Bleimaier on April 7, 2025, 10:11 pm, in reply to "Re: Questions..."

The cream rises to the top. When this baby-boomer was a kid the hippie interest in fine double guns was pretty negligible as I recollect. Appreciation for the finer things is an acquired taste over time. Today's AI nerd may develop into tomorrow's Elsie aficionado.

John Kuhn Bleimaier

Re: Questions...

Posted by Carl Erickson Jr on April 8, 2025, 11:28 am, in reply to "Re: Questions..."

YES! There is something that one can do to keep our sport alive. Teach our youth how to shoot and that the shooting sports is a lifelong activity that includes collecting. Your local NRA club might have a shooting program. They are always looking for help. Your local scout council should have an active youth shooting program. You do not have to be a great shot to teach someone the basics, and the joy of a helping the youth to qualify for an award and safely having fun with a firearm is worth the effort.

Re: Questions...

Posted by Brian Sloan on April 8, 2025, 12:42 pm, in reply to "Re: Questions..."

I Coach a high school and a middle school hunter safety team. We shoot skeet, 22 rifle, and archery. I regularly bring out a Smith to spark interest in American working art. I also guide for Big Hearts Outdoors. Everyone should find thier spot to help. It's very rewarding

Re: Questions...

Posted by Brian Sloan on April 8, 2025, 12:47 pm, in reply to "Re: Questions..."

Re: Questions...

Posted by Ken Descovich on April 8, 2025, 1:44 pm, in reply to "Re: Questions..."

Great job Brian keep it up!

Re: Questions...

Posted by Lloyd McKissick on April 8, 2025, 3:57 pm, in reply to "Re: Questions..."

Brian:

You're clearly doing your part, can't argue with that.

Guns are a cultural thing though and if your family is completely "urban" or simply isn't into firearms (in any form)...that's a pretty hard thing to overcome. If you live anywhere near to the now densely-populated urban corridors of both the East and the West coasts, then even finding a decent place to shoot (let alone hunt) is becoming more-difficult (& accordingly more expensive) as well. I made a significant investment in both time & trouble (all through his formative years) to expose my own son (and even his buddies where they were "allowed" to participate) to expose him (& them) to the world of "life in the great outdoors". That included all-sorts of guns, fishing poles/fly rods, boats, and all of the miscellaneous gear that is required (& that includes lots of ammo). He clearly likes it (& many of his buddies do as well, especially the "game" dinners) but none of them can even-begin to afford it on their own, at least not now (in their early 20s).

Gun "culture" was ubiquitous when I was growing up (in rural NW Pennsylvania) in the 1960s. It was cheap and convenient then (w/mostly inherited guns & w/lots of convenient places to shoot & hunt), but that isn't the case anymore, even there. It's still present, mind you, in many (if not most) rural settings but... it isn't nearly as dominant as it once was (for purely economic reasons). Moreover, guns and hunting are a "delayed-gratification" form of entertainment and they are now competing against all of the various types of "instant-gratification" entertainments that modern life seems to throw at youngsters these days. That can be a hard-sell to many of the current crop of "youngsters" that have come of age with cell-phones, video games, and all the rest of the world wide web's many "temptations".

It has also lately become a Blue State/Red State thing as well (as I'm painfully aware of, living here in seemingly now "deep-blue" Colorado).

Since none of us know how our society will ultimately evolve, there is still room for hope but...only in the more-rural settings (IMHO).

« Back to index

482

[ The L.C. Smith Collectors Association ]