16ga.com ~ View topic

Joined: 07 Jun 2020 Posts: 228

In addition to having owned some very nice LC Smiths. Remember when you doubted I owned 20ga 5E once and you acknowledged I had. I have both Brophy books, Houchins’, and Rich Beyer’s too. I have read them and many more books on all aspects of shotgun design, performance, etc.

The LC Smith is a nice gun, but it is not the pinnacle of side lock design. Your love for the gun overcomes sober judgement. You are entitled to your opinion and affection for the LC, but the facts don’t change. There are many better designed guns than it.

You can drop author names and pontificate, but it does not make it so.

If the brown rotary bolt is the best ever engineered, why did it die out? Who else ever used it? Alexander Brown was a bright designer who came up with another way of doing it, mainly because they did not want to pay for someone else’s patent at the time. Yes it works, but Darwinian mechanics demonstrate it is not the best. If it were it would survive as other patents like Pudey under bolts, Scott Spindle, Holland locks. The survival of 19th century patents in use today is a tribute to their quality, their reliability, their value.

If the locks were such a great design, why does no one do it that way still, or for that matter no one else ever did.

If such a great design, why no intercepting safety ?

While many LCs survive and are still in use, that does not prove their the pinnacle of engineering, it really has more to do with the volume of production.

The fame of LC Smiths for poorly executed stock inletting that resulted in numerous cracked stocks is well known.

Like your family a high grade LC Smith looms in my family lore. I grew up respecting LC Smiths and lusting after having one, I still like them, I am over lusting for another one.

You seem to accept that some European side locks are better, at least you should.

I do agree that LC Smith formed a pinnacle for mass produced American side locks. Which is a very small category to be sure as there are so very few competitors ever making side locks in America. Though it is unclear if CSMC has not bettered them with their current side lock design, either way CSMC is not a true mass producer on the scale of LC, Parker, Fox, or Winchester.

I could go on, but I am not posting to say they are not good guns, they are good guns, but they ain’t the pinnacle of side locks except in a very limited sub category.

old colonel2,

Let us say we disagree about the L.C. Smith engineering design, and yes the original Hodges made Purdey guns, were very hard to beat, the same with the H&H and of course the best engineering design of all time, was the Drop Lock, belonging to Westley Richards.

In reality most of the traditional Brit side lock gun engineering will never hold up when compared with the American made L.C. Smith. I am a professional engineer, no engineering design blinds me in any way. Any gun having to be tuned up each season, and comes with directions to due so, after using it, can not be compared to the incredible L.C. Smith engineering design, that withstands a life time of gunning with few if any problems. In reality the only way to damage an L.C. Smith gun is to abuse it.

Further the L.C. Smith stock design that people think has a problem was similar to any other Side Lock insetting, and the cracking rate percentage was no different than any other side lock manufacturer. You see more L.C. Smith guns with cracked stocks because L.C. Smith made more side lock guns than any other gun manufacturing. So there are more stocks that have failed, at the same percentage rate. A certain number of hard wood stocks will fail, it is just the way hard wood is. I own many L.C. Smith guns, none of my family guns have cracked stocks. I do own one that I purchased from another sportsman that already had a damaged stock, Freddie Brunner repaired the stock perfectly. Most L.C. Smith stocks were cracked from user abuse, not engineering design problems.

If you owned a L.C. Smith 20 gauge #5 gun and sold it you made a big mistake, they are worth a small fortune today.

all the best

Pine Creek/Dave
L.C. Smith Man

Guest

I have to give you credit, Dave, for sticking to your guns.

I’ve had both and a good boxlock is my sweet spot.

Joined: 07 Jun 2020 Posts: 228

Concur with we agree to disagree.

I continue to wish you the best in all things, especially this coming bird season.

Joined: 08 Feb 2009 Posts: 1310 Location: Western WA

Brewster11,

Although the Box Lock is an inexpensive way to engineer and make a shotgun, the actual amount of engineering pieces are not a simple package., nor can they be replaced in the field. Your thoughts on the engineering not being simple are correct. They are a lot less expensive to actually make however. Westley Richards achieved their engineering goal, to make a less expensive double gun for the public by inventing the Box Lock engineering that, takes less hand fit and finishing work and if it fails in the field, the gun can not be repaired there. This part of the Box Lock engineering is seldom talked about, the idea was to sell guns with a different design for the general public to own. Now the Drop Lock is a completely different engineering package that can be fully replaced in the field easier than the Side Lock, some of the best engineering gun design ever invented, it remains very expensive and incredibly reliable. Westley Richards makes these guns a Special Order item today, that can be ordered when the customer decides he wants a gun with top level engineering design.

all the best,

Pine Creek/Dave
L.C. Smith Man

Westley Richards Hand Detachable Lock double gun, (Drop Lock to us American sportsmen), the only gun engineered better than the L.C. Smith Side Lock. I have inspected my good friend Galens 16 gauge Drop Lock fully as professional engineer, and there is no engineering gun design made as perfectly. The gun has a trap door to fully remove the Drop Lock engineering pieces in the field, and simply inset an new set of drop locks. Simply incredible gun engineering. A sportsman can Special Order this gun with DT or SST. Galens gun is the fantastic SST.

PineCreekDave,

I have excised a couple of sentences from your post of 19 July at 1:14 pm:

"Copying an engineering design does not make the design great engineering."

"L.C. Smith invented their own side lock engineering design, they did not copy any Euro gun design, to sell to the American sporting public."

I, like most other great engineers, work on the idea that if a design is a good one, and cannot be improved, it is good to use it or major features of it over and over (even over and under Laughing

). One takes his chances re-inventing the wheel. However, inventing something and coming up with new concepts is certainly worth pursuing. It can result in something great. If future engineer/designers recognize the greatness of that new invention, they will either imitate/copy it, or try to design something better -- human nature, and a law against which there has never been.

So now tell me, how many gun designers have copied the L.C. Smith sidelock or, for that matter, and probably to the goring of somebody else's ox, the Parker boxlock? Why do most custom makers use the concepts and designs of the best British guns -- over and over? ((Actually, British sidelock shotgun design has roots in France from Lefaucheux.) Imitation is not only the sincerest form of flattery, in machines and devices, it is the recognition and cold hard evidence of design superiority.

Q. E. D.

Max Smoke,

There were many gun companies who wanted the L.C. Smith engineering design, it was denied to them by L.C. Smith/Hunter Arms, except for very limited entities. By the time the patents ran out it became to expensive to actually produce the L.C. Smith gun at a cost effective rate, and Marlin found that out the hard way. I say again coping a gun manufacturers gun engineering is not the mark of great gun engineering design, if it were many companies would be making identical copies of the Westley Richards drop lock double gun, which is a great engineering gun design. Instead the gun manufacturers choose to make cheaper guns, that are easier to build and of less quality, that they can make a profit on more easily.

all the best,

Pine Creek/Dave
L.C. Smith Man

Member Joined: 31 Aug 2005 Posts: 1257 Location: Nebraska

Dave, did those Brit companies describe exactly what had to be tuned in their guns each season?

kgb,

Yes the breech to barrel fit up would need to be tightened back to the original engineering fit up specifications, this was the main part of the tune up. There were other small tweaks done to the side locks also, and if needed the hinge pin work repaired.
You never hear of an L.C. Smith gun coming with these instructions, used properly the L.C. Smith guns never shoot loose, the Brown Rotary Bolt gets tighter as it wears, no tune up ever needed with this incredible engineering design. This in fact was part of the engineering design, that other double gun companies were desperately trying to acquire, along with the Lard SST.

Hope all is well out west buddy.

all the best,

Pine Creek/Dave
L.C. Smith Man

incredible -- Love that word. I think you used it right, PineCreekDave.

From Webster -- incredible: too extraordinary and improbable to be believed

the opposite of credible (also from Webster): offering reasonable grounds for being believed

Max Smoke,

You bet all original engineering is incredible, because most people have never seen it before and therefore have trouble believing it will work. It becomes time tested if the engineering design is exceptional.

all the best,

Pine Creek/Dave
L.C. Smith Man

One cannot argue certain L.C. Smith doubles are handsome and wieldy. Those two properties of any gun are in the eye of the beholder, and among the many personal preference features of any gun or other appliance. One can however argue the merits of a design compared to others on the basis of its discontinuance from manufacture. Such discontinuance could be caused by manufacturing practicalities such as parts count, difficulty of parts-making and assembly, the shifting balance of labor and material costs, the rise of competitors based on price, features, aesthetics, reliability, etc. Those are all market forces. It is inarguable that market forces drove the L.C. Smith doubles to discontinuance. Patents, if any were actually in force, did not keep the L.C. Smith guns from being discontinued.

Next thing I suppose I’ll hear is that the market changed. Well, yes it did, and yes it continues to do so. Over the last 20 or 30 years or so, there has been more money than ever chasing luxury products, one of which is the shotgun, many of which are definitely luxurious. There certainly is no patent protection of the L.C. Smith or Parker designs, or any of the old designs of U.S. origin that would prevent copying them or using their features. So why aren’t those designs used in any of today’s luxury guns, let alone those in lower price ranges?

Next I’ll hear it’s all about cost – we can’t make guns as good as the L.C. Smith because they cost too much for people to pay. Well then why do manufacturers of very high price-point guns today all seem to use the designs of Holland & Holland Royal sidelocks and Anson & Deely boxlocks, rather than the purportedly superior L. C. Smith design that according to some was not copied because of patent protection? Why in a market segment where cost is really no restriction has the L.C. Smith design never been used? Over time, there is a very strong fabric of circumstance that indicate inferior designs of products – shotguns in this case.

It is very human to be emotional rather than logical about our preferences. Certainly businesses do well to appeal to human emotions in the design and presentation of their products. However, one must use logic in keeping customers happy and staying in business. Manufacturers of high end, costly shotguns choose their designs logically. So do the manufacturers of shotguns of any type at any price level. I don’t see any manufacturer, high volume or high price that is interested in using the designs of any SxS’s of U.S. origin, notably including the L.C. Smith.

The next thing I’ll likely hear is: “Hey! What about the A.H. Fox designs?” Well, there we have an exception to what I’ve said above about designs of U.S. origin and manufacture. The Fox boxlock is one of those simple and compact designs that has had enough merit to lend itself to custom re-manufacture. "Oh! But it has the same "lock-up" as the Elsie!", they cry. Yes it does, and yes that is it's weak point. Underbolt designs have 2 locking bites (even old 19th century Remington doubles have) and can be made with an extra locking bites. And then there are the crossbolt lock-ups from Kirsten or Greener. "Oh! But the L.C. lock-up compensates for wear!" Not nearly as well as the underbolt style does, and the Elsie "rotary bolt" is all alone and has less bearing area so it wears faster. By the way, being "off face" has noting to do with the lock-up feature -- it is generally a hinge pin wear issue.

Oh, and finally, among SxS’s, the Winchester Model 21 will raise its head. It might shed its ribs now and then, but it can’t be broken – or so the story goes. It still has a very loyal following and keeps great value among a large enough segment of U.S. shooters and collectors. Can’t argue with that. And other than it’s SxS configuration, not a single part of its design is common with the L.C. Smith. Did John Olin miss the boat by not copying the Elsie?

Joined: 17 Jan 2014 Posts: 1380 Location: Denver, Colorado

I also own a true "sidelock" gun and use it for the occasional target & pheasant hunting (mostly). It is an Arrieta 557 which is effectively a Spanish copy of the Holland & Holland action. It was my first really "good" gun (i.e. a hand-made gun versus a machine-made gun) and it has all the bells & whistles you would normally expect in a "best gun" copy (completely stocked to the fences, hand-detachable locks, intercepting sears, bushed firing pins, articulated front trigger, Deeley forend release, upgraded wood w/very fine checkering, decent engraving, great weight & balance. etc.). It is a left-handed gun in that it was made at Arrieta with a cast-on stock and with the triggers being canted to the left. It fits me superbly and I've hauled it all over the country, killing a little bit of everything with it over the years (even prairie chickens once). It's showing it's miles now, with significant bluing wear on the barrels and an almost complete loss of color on the action. The stock's been repaired twice (a bad fall will do that) and it's even been hollowed-out to make the gun a little more weight-forward (& to help the total weight just a bit). There is nothing more to do to improve it from my humble perspective, except for possibly refreshing the ascetics and re-bluing it's tubes. I'd probably like it a little better if it was an English gun (w/better engraving) but I'll never sell it now. A classic 12-bore, it weighs-in at 6lbs11, which is great for pheasant but... it's a bit heavy for the type of hunting I do for ruffed grouse (endless walking & very fast shooting).

My point about all that is the list of "features" I specifically mentioned above. As much as I admired and used Elsies over the years, they don't have any of the "nominal" English sidelock gun features listed above (with perhaps the exception of bushed firing pins in the higher grades). I once dropped a field-grade Elsie (as a very-young man) and I can tell you that interceptors are a very good thing to have, as it went off (and in what easily could have been a tragic situation). Moreover...as it got older and that classic stock-crack became more pronounced, it would even go-off if you closed it too-hard(!). To be fair, that gun had been hard-used before I ever got to it (and I certainly didn't do it any favors). But... many of my Arrieta's "nominal" features have clearly assisted me in my use of it as well (when I slipped on a hillside & cracked the stock it thankfully didn't go off, that articulated front trigger keeps my trigger finger from being "spanked" when I pull the back one, the hand-detachable locks make cleaning and servicing a breeze, etc.) the rest is admittedly more ascetic in nature but it's good weight & balance is not. The Elsies I've owned (and the many I've handled) are all very heavy guns, period. Eight pounds plus seems to be their average 12-bore weight and even their 16s and 20s are pretty stout (when compared to sub-gauge English and European guns) most weighing only slightly-less than what my Arrieta does as a 12. A heavy gun is great for targets (& maybe duck hunting), but it simply wears me out when carrying it afield all day in the uplands, and that slows me down when a bird actually flushes.

I love the classic American doubles for all the nostalgic feelings they evoke in me when I look at them, but... I use British guns (& their many well-executed clones) for almost all my upland hunting any more.

Joined: 14 Apr 2020 Posts: 144 Location: Boise,Idaho

Probably one of the most interesting threads in awhile.
Keep it up.

Bob