Why did L.C. Smith outsell Parker?

[Eldon Goddard]

Just wondering what your opinions in this would be? Why did L.C. Smith sell nearly double the amount of guns Parker did?

[Brian Dudley]

Price may have something to do with it.

Ithaca made more doubles than all of them.

[Pete Lester]

According to information available on the L.C. Smith website it's because they were better guns :rotf:

[Brian Dudley]

But Fox guns are the best in the world. ? I'm confused.

[will evans]

But Fox guns are the best in the world. ? I'm confused.

A subtle difference which may clear up your confusion: Fox guns are the FINEST guns in the World. :corn:

I would say a couple of variables might explain why L.C. Smith outsold Parker. Parker had a more diversified product line competing for marketing and production dollars: coffee grinders, stools, bench vises, etc. From a marketing standpoint, am I correct that vintage Parker Bros shotgun ads are much harder to find?

I would also suggest that Parker might have produced and sold more guns by implementing a less stringent quality control program. Constantly sending guns back to the line for subtle appearance issues didn't help their production totals.

[Linn Matthews]

A contributing factor may be that businesses usually measure their success on the amount of profit made, not the number of units sold

[Drew Hause]

Price and production comparisons are here
https://docs.google.com/a/damascusknowledge.com/document/pub?id=1OTND2bQH0vhlbCf7c2sN8H1vzmT7xagUSXhewGB03S E

Dr. Jim Stubbendieck's L.C. Smith Production Records lists 528,980 gun produced by Hunter Arms and Marlin 1890-1950, of which 92,598 were boxlocks and 2,280 SBTs.

Lefever Arms Co. – about 64,000, plus D.M. Lefever cross bolt guns SN 1000 –
2250.

Baker – about 150,000, including the C grade boxlocks and SBTs.
The Double Gun Journal Vol. 3 No. 3 & 4, 1992; Vol. 9 No. 2, 1998; and Vol. 14 No. 4, 2003 (with a serial number listing).
https://www.picturetrail.com/sfx/album/view/17434920

Parker – about 240,000 (the SNs go to 236530 in 1934)

Ithaca – 400,000-410,000 Ithaca Gun Co. doubles; 260,000 Lefever Nitro Specials; and about 50,000 Western Arms Long Range guns.

No H.&D. Folsom Arms Co. nor Crescent Fire Arms Co. records survive, but Joe Vorisek estimated the following based on serial numbers:
Triumph Model hammerless double - less than 750 c. 1895
1897-1932 more than 1,200,000 doubles
Sidelock Hammerless (except Empire and Quail Model) - 450,000
Empire, New Empire and Quail Model Hammerless double - 120,000
Hammer Double (except small gauge) - 630,000
Small gauge hammer double - 40,000

Colt
Model 1878 Hammer double 1878 - 1889: 22,683
Model 1883 Hammerless 1883 - 1895: SNs 1 - 3,050 and 4,055 - 8,365

Remington Arms Co. produced 41,194 Model 1894 and 98,508 Model 1900 hammerless doubles and 134,200 Model 1889 hammer doubles, for a total of 273,902 doubles, prior to February 1910 when Remington sold the entire inventory of breech loading shotguns to Norvell-Shapleigh Hardware Co. in St Louis, courtesy of David Noreen.
Less precise numbers for E. Remington & Sons suggest about 23,500 top-lever hammer doubles and possibly as many as 13,300 lifter-action hammer doubles.
Charles Semmer, “Remington Arms Co.”, Double Gun Journal, Vol. 1, Issue 1, 1989 and “Remington Whitmore Model 1875” Vol. 3, 2006.

Fox Gun Co. Baltimore 1894 - 1900: less than 1000
Baltimore Arms Co. 1900 – 1904: possibly 6000
Philadelphia Arms Co. 1902 – 1906: less than 2000
David Noreen The Double Gun Journal, Volume 10, Issues 1 & 3, 1999
“The Fox Gun Company of Baltimore City and Baltimore Arms Company” in The Gun Report, Volume 42, Number 9, February 1997

Ansley H. Fox Gun Co. courtesy of David Noreen.
Based on SNs a total of 204,475 doubles:
35,285 graded 12-gauges
3,875 graded 16-gauges
3,974 graded 20-gauges
111,556 12-gauge Sterlingworths
28,481 16-gauge Sterlingworths
21,304 20-gauge Sterlingworths
Serial numbers have significant gaps however so the numbers are inexact.

[Justin Julian]

Responding to the original question, perhaps consumers of the era were drawn to LC Smith's sidelock design, reminiscent of a best British gun, as opposed to the American boxlock.

[Dean Romig]

Responding to the original question, perhaps consumers of the era were drawn to LC Smith's sidelock design, reminiscent of a best British gun, as opposed to the American boxlock.


The Smith thus, being easier to disassemble and work on yourself. A Parker is not the easiest gun to disassemble and put back together properly on the first or even the second attempt. (And, from what I've heard, Smiths needed a lot of internal maintenance.)

[Dave Noreen]

When the first A.H. Fox Gun Co. ads appeared in sporting magazines in late 1905 and early 1906, the Parker Bros. ads near them said "135000 in sportsmen's hands". So, Parker Bros./Remington Arms Co., Inc. produced about 107,000 more guns from then to the end while A.H. Fox Gun Co./Savage Arms Corp. produced somewhere near 180,000.

I think a good part of this is the Sterlingworth. From its introduction in 1910 until after WW-I the Sterlingworth and Parker Bros.' Trojan escalated in price about the same. Then in 1922, A.H. Fox Gun Co. dropped the price of the Sterlingworth to $48, then in 1926 they really dropped the price again to $36.50, a dollar cheaper than the new NID Ithaca Field Grade which was listed at $37.50. Also, the Sterlingworth was offered in a greater variety of barrel lengths, and with the extra cost options of ejectors and the Fox-Kautzky Single Selective Trigger. Parker Bros. kept the price and the fit and finish of the Trojan high and sold about 33,000. Fox went to the lower price and eventually sold about 145,000 Sterlingworths.

[will evans]

When the first A.H. Fox Gun Co. ads appeared in sporting magazines in late 1905 and early 1906, the Parker Bros. ads near them said "135000 in sportsmen's hands". So, Parker Bros./Remington Arms Co., Inc. produced about 107,000 more guns from then to the end while A.H. Fox Gun Co./Savage Arms Corp. produced somewhere near 180,000.

I think a good part of this is the Sterlingworth. From its introduction in 1910 until after WW-I the Sterlingworth and Parker Bros.' Trojan escalated in price about the same. Then in 1922, A.H. Fox Gun Co. dropped the price of the Sterlingworth to $48, then in 1926 they really dropped the price again to $36.50, a dollar cheaper than the new NID Ithaca Field Grade which was listed at $37.50. Also, the Sterlingworth was offered in a greater variety of barrel lengths, and with the extra cost options of ejectors and the Fox-Kautzky Single Selective Trigger. Parker Bros. kept the price and the fit and finish of the Trojan high and sold about 33,000. Fox went to the lower price and eventually sold about 145,000 Sterlingworths.


Those numbers are supported by the records. Parker produced @ 130,000 over a 30 year span - 1874 to 1904; and another 106,000 over the next 30 years. A person could argue that the price drop of the Sterlingworth alone accounts for the difference in sales over that time period. You could argue that the resultant drop of 18.5% in business over that time period is what unraveled the Meriden operations. I doubt either would have survived post WWII, but is it possible Fox brought down both gun makers - themselves by not charging enough, and Parker Bros. by siphoning off their business with the more economical Sterlingworth?

[Bill Murphy]

Read a few hundred Parker orders and you will see what brought them down. They were giving the guns away. The jobber and the retailer were each making more money than the factory, without any investment in skill or equipment.

[Dave Noreen]

Maybe Harvey McMurchy was a better salesman than Arthur DuBray!! Thirty Deluxe Grade L.C. Smiths to only three Invincibles!

[greg conomos]

It's the same reason Michael Jackson has sold more records than Waylon Jennings. There's no accounting for taste.

[Craig Larter]

LC Smith outsold Parker not only in the field grade categories but also the vanity grades. The field grade category success was most likely a result of a lower price, hence Smith outsold Parker by a large margin. But as a Smith Man gained economic standing he would first consider a Smith since his field grade gun had provided good service. It is the same marketing strategy General Motors used for decades. Start them on a Chevy and move them up the ladder to a Caddy.

[will evans]

It's the same reason Michael Jackson has sold more records than Waylon Jennings. There's no accounting for taste.


You guys are harsh. Let's remember that Charles Parker also sold his soul to the Devil when he agreed to supply Grant's Army in the War of Northern Aggression.

[Drew Hause]

Sporting Life reported the guns, hulls & powder used by competitors in major shoots 1895-1902. It is clear that prior to mid-1895 the choice of the "top guns" was British, thereafter a Smith, and starting with the 1898 GAH (mostly) a Parker. The great Fred Gilbert left Hunter Arms for Parker after the 1899 GAH.
https://docs.google.com/a/damascusknowledge.com/document/d/1D8QkBDo-KIQYk2G8lkE-kHLUybB5NJzBahX_eFKEyuY/preview
AND most of the American team in the 1901 Anglo-American Match were induced to use Parkers
https://docs.google.com/a/damascusknowledge.com/document/pub?id=185YOyQl7GIB9OYLs9Hr3tnMLHqs4rjEdR4j_E9l4HL w

It may be that Parker, by advertising and price, was perceived as the 'high class' gun, and there were only so many 'high class' buyers out there.

It is interesting how popular the "The Yankee Sidelock" was in the South, esp. 16g guns, as were Lefevers among the 'well heeled sportsmen'.

[Drew Hause]

In 1899, Harvey McMurchy likely traveled through the West with both Col. A.G. Courtney (Remington) and S.A. Tucker

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/SportingLife/1899/VOL_32_NO_25/SL3225014.pdf
Harvey McMurchy and Col. A.G. Courtney (Remington Arms), two popular gun salesmen, attended a holiday shoot at Kansas City Feb. 22. In a live-bird sweep each killed 14 out of 15. Both did well in the target events.

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/SportingLife/1899/VOL_33_NO_01/SL3301014.pdf
H. McMurchy, of the Hunter Arms Co., and S.A. Tucker, of Parker Bros., are now in San Francisco working the trade in the interests of their respective firms. They took part in the club shoot of the Olympic Gun Club on March 12; McMurchy killing 12 straight and Tucker 10 out of 12. In a six-bird sweep McMurchy again made a clean score.

[Daryl Corona]

Now, if I were a consumer in that era and I was looking for a entry level shotgun I would have bought the Sterlingworth. Slimmer than a Trojan (although I love my Trojans), more options and cheaper. What's not to like.

[Bill Zachow]

Bill makes a very good point about "giving away the profit". I have the order on my 1916 DH, that was listed at $100. The ordering gun shop in Watertown, NY paid $68 after taking all 3 discounts. They had a gross profit of $32. Probably much higher than Parker's on the same gun.

[Gary Carmichael Sr]

For whatever reason Smith and others out sold Parker I am sort of glad about the whole thing, Which do you think will bring more in todays market, L.C, Smith Deluxe, or a Invincible by Parker? The Invincible would if you could find one for sale!, Credit the PGCA for bringing the Parker gun to the fore front making it a very desirable gun to have, Gary

[Bruce Parham]

...Credit the PGCA for bringing the Parker gun to the fore front making it a very desirable gun to have, Gary

And forcing me to spend so %^&## much money!:)

Bruce

[greg conomos]

Hmmm...I think Parkers were well established prior to the PGCA.

[Rick Losey]

but PGCA sure did truncate the learning curve

[Dean Romig]

I think it was the founders of the PGCA and their hard work and the hard work of others as they joined... to say nothing of the popularity and high demand created by the authors of The Parker Story, Ed Muderlak's Parker Guns, The Old Reliable and other books on Parkers. These are the things - these are the people - that really created the popularity and demand for Parker guns.

[will evans]

Let's not forget to thank Al Gore. The internet is what has really allowed hidden guns to get in front of many more interested parties.