16ga.com ~ View topic

Joined: 17 Jan 2014 Posts: 1381 Location: Denver, Colorado

Thankyou again Dr. Drew. If (big if) I end up with another Smith gun, it will be a homecoming of sorts. In the world I grew up in, Smith guns were held in very high regard. It wasn't until I'd graduated from college, married, and relocated to the big city that I had a chance to even experience shotguns made elsewhere in the world. For the type of upland hunting I found myself doing as a middle-aged adult, I discovered that more medium-grade English game guns better suited my circumstances (& wallet). Now that I've become something of a serious fossil, I find myself casting about yet again for a tool (for a fairly specific application) and I'm delighted to find that perhaps an older American classic (& an old friend from my youth) might yet find a home in my battery of guns.

As usual, the search is almost more fun that the finding. I'm hoping to enjoy that process.

Lloyd3,
There is no engineering design problem with the L.C. Smith guns, and yes the company started using different hard wood on their later guns, and altered the design just slightly to accommodate the different quality wood. If L.C. Smith/Hunter Arms believed the engineering design had a problem they would have corrected it for sure. If there had been an engineering design problem every stock on every gun L.C. Smith ever made would have cracked because of a design problem, this is definitely not the case. Care must be taken in oiling and storing the L.C. Smith guns, directions to that fact came with the guns when purchased.
Wood grain varies in hard wood and cracking can occur to a certain percentage of the hard wood used to make stocks., in fact it happens to every side lock gun manufacturer in the world, at almost the exact same percentage. Glass bedding is a nice idea, however not really necessary with a properly taken care of gun.
I again direct you to Nick Makinson Video for the truth about L.C. Smith guns.

all the best,

Pine Creek/Dave
L.C. Smith Man

L.C. Smith hang tags from 1887 to about 1920 specified a 12 gauge load of 3 Dram with 1 1/4 oz. shot (1165 fps)

DuPont Oval was developed for the 1922 introduction of Western Cartridge Co.’s 12g 2 3/4” 1 1/4 oz. 3 3/4 Dram Eq. ‘Super-X Field’; the The Peters Cartridge Co. ‘High Velocity’, United States Cartridge Co. ‘Ajax Heavies Long-Range’, Remington Kleanbore ‘Nitro Express Extra Long Range’ (the boxes were marked “3 3/4 Drs. Equiv.”), and Winchester Super Speed (also marked 3 3/4 Dr. Eq.) loads soon followed.

Western’s 3 inch ‘Record’ with 1 3/8 oz. of shot was released in 1923; U.S. Cartridge Co. ‘Climax Heavies’ in 1927.

Therein lies the problem.

And many of the guns we are using are now > 100 years old, with > 100 year old wood.

Lefever, obviously with more wood surface contacting the frame, but they can crack also

[url=https://drewhause.smugmug.com/Wood/i-XRskC7j/A]

[/url]

Boxlocks crack down the middle; a 20g Parker

[url=https://drewhause.smugmug.com/Wood/i-TWnzBWp/A]

[/url]

Dewey Vicknair on L.C. Smith design Shocked

https://vicknairgunsmithing.blogspot.com/2016/01/an-unbiased-look-at-design-of-american.html

https://www.trapshooters.com/threads/lc-smith-an-american-side-lock.879237/

The same old debate Wink

http://www.16ga.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18866&sid=3350dd9b045136790c8fa32eaf3b2ef7

Gentlemen,
Dewey is not the expert on L.C. Smith guns, however Master Gun Maker Nick Makinson is! Same old argument form you on this subject. Watch the video and learn something about L.C. Smith guns, instead of listening to Dewey, who refuses to work on L.C. Smith guns. Although I respect Deweys opinion & talent on most guns, he knows very little about L.C. Smith guns, except for the guns abused and brought to him for repairs, his opinion on L.C. Smith guns is very flawed because he only sees guns that were abused.

all the best,

Pine Creek/Dave
L.C. Smith Man

You are aware that Nick passed in 2021?
And made much of his money repairing Smiths?

Joined: 17 Oct 2019 Posts: 456 Location: New Jersey

I have not read any replies to this thread, yet. I have owned several LC Smith’s over the years and my current vintage, side-by-side clays gun is a Field Grade 12 gauge when I purchased it, it too still had the lacquer over the lock plates. LC Smith’s are pretty much bomb proof. Their only weakness is the head of the stock obviously. What I did with mine was immediately take it to a Smith to have the head glassed. Much to my surprise he found a couple of cracks. He repaired them and glassed everything and I have several thousand rounds through it since without an issue. Open the chokes and go have some fun.

Joined: 17 Jan 2014 Posts: 1381 Location: Denver, Colorado

Lots of good reading here (I knew I'd get my answers, thank you all!). So sorry to hear about Nick.

Well...as a now "informed" consumer I need to consider a few factors...like how much does nostalgia affect my decision (a fair amount, I fear), how much out-lay do I need to realistically consider for this little boondoggle, and how much does getting a Smith gun's stock-head glassed cost these days?

If I can have a bunch of fun without spending a bunch of money (or time) I'd be sorely tempted.

Yet another First-World problem.

RevDoc,
Yes I am fully aware of my good friends passing, that is why I tell people to watch his videos. L..C. Smith guns were only a small part of his business, he was one of the best Master Gun Makers in the world. His other major expertise was Purdey & Westley Richards double guns.

all the best,

Pine Creek/Dave
L.C. Smith Man

Swampy16,

Sounds like somebody abused your gun before you purchased it, always a smart idea to have a Classic American gun checked out before you shoot it. You did the correct procedure and had the gun inspected and repaired. The Glass Bedding is a good idea after the gun is fully repaired. You will probably have no problems with your gun now.
Make sure you clean, oil, and store your gun properly and you should be able to pass the gun down thru your family for many generations to come. Remember L.C. Smith/Hunter Arms recommended only the use of Singer Sewing Machine oil on their guns and only a small amount, in designated areas.

all the best,

Pine Creek/Dave
L.C. Smith Man

#7 L.C. Smith double gun, the stuff dreams are made of!

Joined: 19 Jun 2004 Posts: 1480 Location: Mpls, MN.

Lloyd,
You know better than this…

I’ve got $50 that says underneath those locks, with the varnish still on them, the wood is already cracked, and has been for years. You aren’t retired just yet, and don’t need a retirement project. Read Dewey’s piece, and understand, the wood is just the beginning of the problem. He repaired Smith guns for decades, until he finally decided he had had enough. ANYONE who says Dewey isn’t an expert in his trade is badly mistaken.

He is the best.

The list of gunsmiths, very, very qualified gunsmiths, who won’t touch a Smith, is sobering.

Good luck, whatever you decide to do.

Best,
Ted

Joined: 07 Jun 2020 Posts: 229

I like LC’s as I do other American side by sides. I have owned several, but not enough to keep them. High end LC’s are beautiful guns and very tempting.

I believe that Dewey has more practical knowledge and experience at repairing side by sides. Further his gun making and restoration work has shown me he is a skilled gunsmith.

All said I agree with Dewey’s description of the design complexities to avoid patent issues and compromises in order to facilitate mass production. The Best British broke the code and got the patents on many things ahead of the rest.

Their is a reason the H&H sidelock is imitated repeatedly, as is the Anson Deeley boxlock, the Purdey lock up, the Curtis Pushrod, the Deeley latch, etc, etc. is because the designs are better.

Who copied the LC cocking design? Or the forearm latching? The LC fell by the wayside as the design was not as efficient. That does not mean it is not a good design that worked and will last for generations, but they themselves discovered it was too hard and therefore too expensive to make at the price point of the market they were in. Engineers can explain design simplicity and effectiveness. For the most part ultimately the market decides what is best. Dewey is just the informed guy who enunciated the answer.

That does not mean I don’t like the LC or deride them as bad. I like them, but I am a realist.

A.J. Aubrey used cocking levers. Not the most enduring of U.S. SxSs, but it seemed to work for awhile Wink

[url=https://drewhause.smugmug.com/Gun-Stuff/AJ-Aubrey-Sears/i-QKZFpbM/A]

[/url]

Joined: 17 Jan 2014 Posts: 1381 Location: Denver, Colorado

Ted:

If you'd grown-up in a L.C. Smith household you'd know where I was on this. I lugged a big, heavy, circa 1914 Field Grade, Curtis-forend gun all over Venango County as a boy, shooting just about everything available in Western Pennsylvania with it. It had been my paternal grandfather's gun when new (he bought it with savings from his first real job), then my father's, then mine. It became so-unsafe to use (it would go off occasionally when closed) because of stock-cracking that I effectively disabled it and then disposed of it. It had been hard-used (in a hardscrabble place) and, frankly... any gun subjected to such use (from benign-neglect to downright foolish abuse) would be expected to have a few problems (although all the rest of the family guns from that period are still functional, at least to my knowledge)

It's the only gun that I directly inherited that I don't still own. If I do happen to accumulate one, it will be for the right price and then used sparingly, maybe a handful of times each year. Nostalgia is a funny thing, if it wasn't... I'd probably be shooting a Benelli autoloader.