Smith & Wesson 44 Russian Bullet mold

BMur · #1 02-18-2020, 07:20 PM

I’ve always wanted one of these molds. It’s seen in the N&J book however it is listed only as a 44 cal mold. What bothered me about the mold is the Pre-1887 bullet design? I mean it looks like a 44WCF to me. Especially during that early period. These early molds were replaced with the improved kit in and about 1887 that incorporated the peanut handle double cavity mold.
After examining this mold I’m both astonished and amazed that it actually is a 44 Russian bullet mold. Notice in the photo the 44WCF case head does not fit in the machined primer boss. I tried earlier non head stamped rounds also and they also were too big!However The 44 Russian, special and magnum heads fit perfectly flush. This is required for this type of mold in order to replace the spent primer!
The proof positive is the Actual bullet diameter mic’s at .429 which is correct for the 44 Russian and wrong for the 44 Winchester. (.427)
Anyway, just some rock solid evidence that Smith & Wesson incorporated a flat nosed bullet for the 44 Russian early on as an option for the reloader. To me that’s beyond amazing! Still I wonder why? Did they know the flat nose provided better stopping power?

Murph

Oyeboteb · #2 02-19-2020, 11:28 PM

What fun!

What make Mold is this?

BMur · #3 02-20-2020, 01:04 AM

That’s the real question isn’t it? Who made the mold?
We know these type molds were in early Smith & Wesson reloading kits from about 1876-1887.
Remington had identical kits during the same time frame with identical molds. Unique only to their specific calibers but that Remington also sold kits having Smith & Wesson calibers!
Most collectors believe there was actually a bullet mold maker that was contracted to make them. I agree with this position. Nobody seems to know who it was but the very unique pattern can be traced back to the Civil War. So the mold maker was obviously well established and remained in business for a long time.
This particular mold is off the hook! It makes no sense by that I mean the flat point design? I can’t find a 44 Russian in any of my books or in my collection with this design bullet. They are ALL round nose. Even the early target bullets were round nose throughout production so I have no clue where this mold fits. In fact there is another mold of this exact type pattern that has the typical 44 Russian round nose conical design. I can also claim from research that these molds were obsolete prior to 1890. So it’s hard for me personally to believe they kept making them after that time because “ Heat insulated” handles were a vast improvement on these “burn your fingers type early molds”
I can Also tell what Caliber it isn’t.

It’s not a Remington 44
It’s not a Colt 44
It’s not a Winchester 44 WCF
It’s not a Bulldog 44
It’s not a Webley 44
It’s to early for a 44 special

So it’s got me stumped.
Maybe that’s why the N&J book only calls it a 44 mold?
Whoever made this mold came out with the “very first” flat point bullet design for the .429 pistol round recorded!! Likely in the mid 1880’s! I haven’t cast a bullet with the mold but I would estimate the weight of the bullet cast with pure lead to be between 230-240 grains.

Murph

LoboGunLeather · #4 02-20-2020, 01:11 AM

Very nice find, and I appreciate your research and comments.

mmaher94087 · #5 02-20-2020, 01:56 PM

I'd suggest that you mold a bullet and check the diameter as cast. This may give a different diameter. The following numbers are from U.S. Cartridges and Their Handguns, 1795 - 1975, by Charles Suydam, Beinfield Publishing, Inc., 1977.

There are .44 S&W Special bullets by UMC and WRACo. that are .430 and .427. (p. 216)

The S&W Russian bullets run from UMC, US and WRACo. run from .407, .414 to .418 and only Eley London is listed at .429. (P. 212)

Lastly, (P. 218) is a .44 (Remington) Magnum Super-X listed at .430. REM-UMC is not far behind at .427.

BMur · #6 02-20-2020, 03:08 PM

Just to be clear on the timeline for this bullet mold?

These were most definitely Pre-1887 manufactured molds that Pre-date the Improved kit introduced by Smith & Wesson in 1887. How do we know they weren't made much later?

Well, not only were the molds replaced with the insulated wood handle bullet molds in the Improved kits? These early molds have one identifying factor that can't be blown off.

When found? They always support early bullet designs. Never have I seen or heard of one that supports an improved design. If they were made later wouldn't they have seen improvements in bullet designs? I think they would. Yet all support only early "outside lubricated bullets" for the .32,.38, and even the .44 Russian and that includes the Remington molds. "ALL" early design outside lubricated!!

ALL except this one!! This is the one exception. In my opinion this bullet was designed by the mold maker. Smart person that he was. He was ahead of his time. Unfortunately for him it was way before the Market excepted the flat point bullet as a superior design to the dinosaur round nose bullet that even survived to become the first bullet selected for the .38 special in 1899!!!. and this is the real mystery to this bullet mold. "THE FLAT POINT" "INSIDE LUBRICATED" bullet design.....WAY ahead of it's time!

Murph

orbruce · #7 02-20-2020, 04:01 PM

I'm not so sure this is a 44 Russian Mold. The flat nose is more in keeping with tube feed rifle cartridges, otherwise if pointed end would sit on the primer of the cartridge directly forward. Flat nose cartridges would not have this problem. The 44 Russian iron handle mold I have has a pointed bullet, but does not have the hole for priming the cartridge, see photo's. My 44 Russian Wood handle mold also has a pointed bullet, same as this mold. I'm thinking more like a 44-40 caliber which was a standard caliber for the Winchester rifles. While S&W chamber their New Model #3 for the 44-40 cartridge they did not produce loading tools in that caliber.

B. Mower

BMur · #8 02-20-2020, 06:23 PM

Even though your early 44 Russian mold lacks the primer pocket? I’m of the opinion that It’s the same mold maker during the same “ Early Period”. Same exact scale design! Same exact spru design! Your mold is the early outside lubricated 44 Russian bullet. See photo. These early bullets left the lubrication “ outside” of the case with NO case crimp. The crimping tool was not included in the kit until the improved kit of 1887. The bullet for the 44 Russian also changed! It was no longer like this early design! It’s the same for the 32&38 cals as well!
My mold will not fit the 44 WCF case to prime the shell! That’s part of the problem In calling it a rifle mold. The head is too big. Plus I’m confident that the bullet will mold too heavy for a rifle of that tubular design. I’m pretty sure it’s going to cast heavy. Like a pistol bullet.

I’m going to mold a few bullets later today. I will post an exact comparison later today of a 44WCF cast bullet from an original Winchester bullet mold that’s also Pre-1887!. I don’t think that they will line up as twins but we’ll see.

Murph

BMur · #9 02-20-2020, 06:46 PM

This says it better.
Photo 1 is your early mold showing where the bullet is seated. Just at the top of the skirt. Leaving the lubrication grooves “Outside” the case.
In 1887 they introduced bullet 2 in photo 2 with inside lubrication. You can clearly see the difference. They never went back!

So your Bullet mold is a very EARLY mold! Pre-1887!!

Murph

4barrel · #10 02-20-2020, 07:32 PM

That is a very good looking boolit on the right. It looks to be very accurate with the flat base.

BMur · #11 02-20-2020, 09:57 PM

Thanks 4 barrel,
That's the kind of bullet you can mold with a modern mold I guess. These antique molds are not too much fun to use. The old "burn the fingers molds of yesteryear"...

Anyway, all you have to do is take a good look at the photo. You can clearly see that this very early mold is "NOT" a 44 WCF mold. The cast bullet weighs in at a whopping 246 grains, next to the original 44WCF bullet at 202 grains and a very clean .427 diameter "consistently".

I cast 10 bullets of each caliber in the antique molds and took an average of all bullets cast and weighed.

You can also see that the 246 grain flat nose is obviously a pistol bullet. It is not a rifle bullet. It's definitely a heavy......and it casts at .429 consistently. It towers over the little rifle round. The Winchester bullet was cast from a PRE-1890 iron single cavity mold with no wood handles...All iron...so this is the correct mold for the comparison.

The only caliber that this mold works perfectly with is the .44 Russian case of that Pre-1887 timeline and that is the "ENTIRE POINT"....When the bullet mold was made and why it has the modern design PISTOL cavity?

Remington bullets in early ads, molds, etc. of that ERA are also seen having only the round nose bullet of choice.

So, again....I'm still stumped on this mold...It is what it is....A RARE BIRD that most definitely "Introduced" the flat nose "inside lubricated" round to the .429 "PISTOL" bullet. Pre-dating everything that I'm aware of and of course making absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Murph

mmaher94087 · #12 02-20-2020, 10:45 PM

I guess that I'm not seeing your obsession with this being the .44 S&W Russian bullet from this mold. The latest Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook lists the (handgun) .44 Russian at .430 and both the .44 S&W Special and the .44 Remington Magnum at .429. The Special and the Magnum are both flat nose. Also listed is the (rifle) .44-40 (.44WCF) at .429 and it's a flat nose also. I believe your mold is an early .44-40 rifle mold.

orbruce · #13 02-20-2020, 11:42 PM

I tend to agree with Mike, a 44-40 mold. My cartridge reference books also give wide ranges for both the 44 Russian and 44-40 bullet diameter . Also keep in mind that the cast bullet diameter is not the final diameter of the bullet when reloaded with S&W tools. To reload, the cast bullet it was placed in the top of long loading tube and then hammered down into the case with a plunger and mallet. The long loading tube has a slight taper until the case mouth is reached thus reducing the final diameter of the bullet. I have observed this very thing in reloading 320 Revolving Rifle bullets, the cast bullet and the "sized" bullet were different diameter, the final bullet being .320.

However there is a picture of what appears to be your mold and my mold side by side in the Neal & Jinks book, they are just listed as 44 caliber. The molds pictured are from the collection of Charles Duffy, a long time knowledgeable S&W collector, so could be a 44 Russian mold.

B. Mower

4barrel · #14 02-21-2020, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMur

This says it better.
Photo 1 is your early mold showing where the bullet is seated. Just at the top of the skirt. Leaving the lubrication grooves “Outside” the case.
In 1887 they introduced bullet 2 in photo 2 with inside lubrication. You can clearly see the difference. They never went back!

So your Bullet mold is a very EARLY mold! Pre-1887!!

Murph

Lee makes a mold close to the one on the right. 90341 for 44-40 but 44 special or mag will shoot it.

Oyeboteb · #15 02-21-2020, 09:09 PM

I suppose it is possible that someone could have special ordered a Mold for .44 Russian, who's Boolit would have the flat nose otherwise associated with the "1873" .44-40 Tube Fed Magazine Rifle.

S & W or a Distributor or as may be, would simply have known and contacted who-ever was making the Molds for S & W et al, to have this done, shipped to them, then, handed it or shipped it to their Customer whom they had special ordered it for.

It would be a very good Boolit for .44 Russian Revolver.

I would have wanted it over the 'Round Nose' back then...and no doubt, others did and would have also.

BMur · #16 02-22-2020, 04:30 PM

Well,
The simple truth is E. Remington & Sons became a Corporate Giant after the Civil War with "Millions of dollars" in sales of firearms overseas alone.

They branched out into so many different production avenues in the 1870's and early 1880's often creating other businesses on contract to make: Sewing machines, bicycles, farm equipment, pumps, lathes, burglar alarms and yes (bullet molds as well) etc...… That's why it's so hard to find the actual "contractor" that made these early molds. Because they actually were an offshoot of the " E. Remington Corporate Giant" of that time. I did some more research into their "Bankruptcy" beginning in 1886.... and finalized in 1888. All of their contracts etc were sold off to the highest bidder.

It's just a little bit "too co-incidental" that Smith & Wesson began "labeling their "Improved" kits in 1887 with the Company name. (During Remington's bankruptcy? and sell off?) The first time in fact that the kits were labeled with the Smith & Wesson Company name.

I believe this was an obvious benefit brought on by the "purchase" of the kit making contract as part of the sell off from the Remington bankruptcy.

It also marked the historical end of these early bullet molds...Fits like a glove. E. Remington & Sons bankruptcy was the source of the early molds being discontinued and the introduction of the Improved kits for Smith & Wesson.

So the origin of these early molds and early kits was in fact a contractor that was financed through the Corporate Giant that E. Remington & Sons was during and after the Civil War. Who knows? it might have been a small shop attached to the Remington bicycle manufacturing shop!

I'd also be willing to "BET" that the original court documents containing details of the E. Remington & Sons bankruptcy proceedings would have detailed information regarding who bought what and also what was sold off as a result...…. I wonder if those records exist?

So that’s why early Remington kits were labeled “ Manufactured by E. Remington”. Because they owned the shop that made them. See photos of early kits/molds until Bankruptcy ended production!

Murph

orbruce · #17 02-22-2020, 11:09 PM

I reviewed Dick Bennett's paper "Smith & Wesson Bullet Molds Is it S&W or Remington?" He gives some differences between the Remington and S&W, unfortunately his article was based on observations of 32 and 38 S&W and Remington molds and boxed sets, there were no 44 caliber molds listed.

Is it possible the mold is in the 44 Russian caliber by actually made by Remington?

B. Mower

BMur · #18 02-23-2020, 12:25 AM

I think the only possible documented information “ might be “ found in court records of Remington & Sons Bankruptcy that began in 1886 and concluded in March of 1888.

After reading a lot into the Remington Corporation both the size and financial influence they had? I’m satisfied that “All” the early molds prior to 1886 were manufactured by E Remington & Sons due to them basically owning the machine shop that performed the work. The court records may reveal more if they still exist?

This position fills in a lot of blanks. I don’t think that we have ever before actually considered “The Bankruptcy “ as evidence to support that E Remington & Sons the early Company was a very vast and influential Corporate power that basically spread itself too thin. This clearly was an opportunity for Smith & Wesson to legally take over the Reloading Tools. Whether it was a contract with a machine shop? Or if it was a lock, stock and barrel purchase?(tools and equipment?) who knows?
Again, court records might answer that. I plan on looking into it when I have time.

As far as the early 44 mold? I’ve studied these molds for a long time. Read many reports and opinions from collectors and “ NEVER” have I seen any Winchester rifle calibers offered! In fact of the 100’s of molds I’ve seen? ALL are pistol molds!!! ALL but 1. That’s the RARE 320 revolving rifle mold for the Smith & Wesson. That’s actually built on a New Model 3 Pistol frame? So honestly there is ZERO evidence that this is a Winchester rifle mold. And for those who refuse to look at the non fitting case head of the 44 WCF brass? You must answer the Question: Why doesn’t the 44 Winchester cartridge case head fit in this loading tool? It’s a tool that performs multiple functions. It’s not just a bullet mold!

Murph

mmaher94087 · #19 02-23-2020, 12:32 PM

The Rem-UMC 44 WCF in your loading tool has a .463-.465 head. A .44 S&W Special has a .453-.456 head. The Special was available in 1907. Could your mold be from 1907?

BMur · #20 02-23-2020, 01:55 PM

Mike,
Here are two accurate case drawings comparing the 44 Smith & Wesson Russian Pistol Cartridge to the 44 Winchester Centerfire “ Rifle “ Cartridge.

The case “HEAD” For the Winchester is actually .525
The case “ HEAD” For the Russian is actually . 515

The Russian is much smaller.
And once again and finally? The Winchester 44 case head is much too large.... “It’s too big” to fit in this tool! Therefore it’s the wrong case and “Wrong caliber” for this “Pistol tool”!

This tool is for the 44 Russian. I’ve also presented a ton of evidence that the tool was discontinued when E. Remington & Sons filed for Bankruptcy in 1886! So it was long discontinued by 1907. Etc etc.

The .456 case number you posted is actually the diameter of the 44 Russian case. NOT the case HEAD.

Murph

mmaher94087 · #21 02-23-2020, 02:20 PM

I agree that your mold isn't .44-40. I, too, referenced different reloading and reference books and can find numbers all over the place. A case in point is your illustration above of the .44 Russian states the bullet diameter as .4325 not the .429 your mold casts. We may never know what it was intended to be used for.

orbruce · #22 02-23-2020, 03:26 PM

If Remington was making all the early S&W molds why would they produce one with a pointed bullet and one with a flat nose? The loading tools in the Remington boxed sets differ from the tools in the early S&W boxed sets, especially primer punch (wood vs metal) and the plunger (different shape heads). These would seem to indicate, if Remington was producing the early S&W load tools, they were running two different production lines. If this is true, maybe they were over extended leading to their bankruptcy.

Has anyone ever seen a Remington 44 caliber boxed set of tools?

B. Mower

BMur · #23 02-23-2020, 03:55 PM

In my opinion in order to conduct accurate research your data must be “Time Specific”. Even the cartridge diagrams I posted are NOT Time specific. We have to look at what was happening between 1876-1886 only! These tools and calibers changed dramatically after that time.

I’ve studied the early kits and I’m convinced that the Smith & Wesson boxed kits and the early
Remington boxed kits were basically identical. “ Slight variations” In machining and tools can be attributed to the tools of the early kits being manufactured for over 10 years. So “ slight” improvements were obviously made to the kits that included strengthening the mallet, replacing the primer punch with a metallic tool vs originally wood, etc
Other than that they were identical!