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?

[B. Dudley]

Price may have something to do with it.

Ithaca made more doubles than all of them.

[J.B. Books]

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

[B. Dudley]

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

[Jawjadawg]

Originally Posted by Brian Dudley

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.

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.

[Parkerman]

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/damascuskn...agUSXhewGB03SE

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.

[Ruff Hunter]

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.)

[Researcher]

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.