Smith & Wesson Reloading kits Pre-1887 "UPDATE"

[BMur]

I "FINALLY" found an early iron mold "Pre-1887" that is actually marked by what I believe is the manufacturer of these molds. UNION METALIC CARTRIDGE Co. The stamp is legit in my opinion and portrays early and unique dies. I purchased the mold and when it arrives I'll put it under the 60 power loop but I think it's right.

This strongly supports and continues the theory that the early Smith & Wesson reloading kits in the cardboard boxes "Pre-1887"were assembled by Major Distributors in New York and the early iron molds that are identical in the Smith & Wesson kits and Remington kits were actually manufactured by the Union Metalic Cartridge Co. in Bridgeport, Ct. That company's association with both Smith & Wesson and Remington is clearly documented. This is the only early iron mold that I have encountered that is Company marked.

It's likely an early mold since it is for the .32L outside lubricated bullet. It also makes perfect sense that the molds would not be stamped with the UMC Co stamp when sub-contracted for kits assembled for another Company's use.


Murph

[first-model]

Originally Posted by BMur

This strongly supports and continues the theory that the early Smith & Wesson reloading kits in the cardboard boxes "Pre-1887"were assembled by Major Distributors in New York and the early iron molds that are identical in the Smith & Wesson kits and Remington kits were actually manufactured by the Union Metalic Cartridge Co. in Bridgeport, Ct.

Murph, I'm not a scholar of early reloading tools, so I ask this question earnestly.

How do we know that these were made by UMC and then subsequently sold by S&W, and not vice-versa? In other words, what's to say that S&W wasn't the one actually making the tools, and then they were sold under the UMC name?

It's an interesting question of directionality, but it does occur to me that S&W probably had more and better tooling to make these sorts of things than UMC would have.

Mike

[AJ]

Unless you can find some contracts or other paperwork to support the thoughts expressed it is purely supposition. I wish you luck in your endeavors.

[BMur]

I appreciate the interest. Research is a step by step process. So far, in my opinion, information that I have gathered supports what I posted. I have way too much information to put into a 3 line response.
As far as documents? I am in the process of obtaining documents from the E. Remington & Sons "bankruptcy" that was initiated in 1886.(Public Record).
The same "exact" year these early kits, and molds were terminated! That is not supposition. Those documents I'm confident will contain information regarding specific "creditors" unpaid by E. Remington and Sons.
I suspect UMC & Co. will be one of those mentioned in depth.
Regarding early mold production:
Proven patterns of early mold production including "Colts Patent", Winchester, UMC & Co, Manhattan, Remington, Marlin, Ideal, Bridgeport Gun Implements, Smith & Wesson, and the kits assembled. It was typically the little guy making parts for the big guy.
Also, typically? a Company stamp represented "Ownership". That's why I'm intrigued by this rare mold.

Murph

[first-model]

Originally Posted by BMur

As far as documents? I am in the process of obtaining documents from the E. Remington & Sons "bankruptcy" that was initiated in 1886.(Public Record).
The same "exact" year these early kits, and molds were terminated! That is not supposition. Those documents I'm confident will contain information regarding specific "creditors" unpaid by E. Remington and Sons.
I suspect UMC & Co. will be one of those mentioned in depth.

Those records could have clues in them ... but just owing someone money isn't "proof" of who actually made the molds. As another posted said, I'd want to see contracts or something with very direct language in it to decide who was making what for who. They may be in there, or they may not.

UMC was an ammo company. There were tooled to make copper (and brass) cartridge casings, primers, powder, and cast lead bullets. While I'm sure they had plenty of machining expertise, their production line wouldn't have lent itself towards making bullet molds, which are actually a lot more like guns in terms of the materials and machining processes needed to make them (steel and iron as opposed to brass, lead and copper).

I'm open to having my mind changed on that, but the threshold for evidence here is pretty high. Certainly more than a stamp and some bankruptcy papers.

When I did my history degree, we had it hammered into us that it's good to develop a working theory ... but one also has to be very careful not to hand-fit the evidence to support that theory. Certainly, in this case, more than a stamp on a mold and some bankruptcy papers.

And again ... I'm not an expert on bullet molds. Just asking questions based on what I see.

Mike

[Club Gun Fan]

I believe Smith & Wesson made their own reloading tools. They had the capacity. However, I support your efforts in trying to find out.

[BMur]

I'm just a research addict fellas..

UMC did make bullet molds and actual kits also. I have a few of their molds in my collection. The few that I have are early outside lubricated and have the same company stamp on the sprue...I'm going to compare that stamp when the mold arrives with the others that I have but it looks identical to me. It seems UMC stopped manufacturing molds at the same time Remington went into Bankruptcy. I'm hoping the documents will shed light on that subject...Who know's? If those documents are of no help I think the research brick wall is then realized. See photo of kits.

I was focusing on UMC and BGI as possible makers of the early iron kit molds without any progress until this mold showed up. It's just a piece of the puzzle that may or may not ever come together.....Just having fun with it.

These molds are definitely Identical as found in the Smith & Wesson kits, Remington kits, and now actually having a correct UMC Company stamp!

Murph

[Club Gun Fan]

I'm going to be looking at a collection of over 200 Smith & Wesson Reloading Tools tomorrow. I'll look to see if there are any other names on any sets.

[first-model]

Originally Posted by BMur

UMC did make bullet molds and actual kits also. I have a few of their molds in my collection. The few that I have are early outside lubricated and have the same company stamp on the sprue...I'm going to compare that stamp when the mold arrives with the others that I have but it looks identical to me. It seems UMC stopped manufacturing molds at the same time Remington went into Bankruptcy. I'm hoping the documents will shed light on that subject...Who know's? If those documents are of no help I think the research brick wall is then realized. See photo of kits.

But again: the name on the box / mold isn't "proof" of anything, other than whose name the product was being marketed and sold under. Manufacturing is another thing to prove altogether. If the stamps match, that just suggests that the same people stamped these various molds.

The more I think about this, the more I think it's a really interesting question. But I think you're going into it with a lot of spurious assumptions. Again—I'd love to see it shown that UMC was in the business of making molds (and perhaps other accoutrements), but it'll take a lot more than grainy photographs to substantiate that claim.

Mike

[Club Gun Fan]

On the other hand, I know Stanley Tools made the Straightline box. Stands to reason they would also make the tools that went in the kit. Maybe they made reloading tools for everyone.

[BMur]

I don't know...Maybe I'm easily hood winked? I tend to believe a label that is written "Manufactured by" and "sealed by the Manufacture"? and follow die's of that period that "match" other proven dies....but who knows? Patterns of production and physical evidence can be faked! Maybe the aliens landed in the 1920's and faked all this stuff? Maybe these companies never actually existed? It's easy to throw a wrench into research.. Even documents can be and often are faked....So "Nothing" is ever proven if you are of that mindset.


Murph

[Club Gun Fan]

Murh
We found the Stanly logo on Straightline boxes.

[first-model]

Originally Posted by BMur

So "Nothing" is ever proven if you are of that mindset.

Precisely. Historians—at least, those that want to be taken seriously—don't talk about "proof."

Mike

[BMur]

The Chamberlain book page 47. ( cartridge reloading tools of the past) Just one reference. UMC manufactured kits and molds that are extremely rare. Notice the photo of the de-capper for the 45 Schofield that has the “ Exact same stamp” I presented on my first post. I fully understand that small companies (shops) often were the actual maker of small parts. Even parts for some major gun makers! The mold in question is the focus of this thread. UMC & Co IS a possible maker of this mold since they are proven to have been involved with reloading kits and tools by many who have actually “researched” the history of the company. The photo of the kit and box with “ Manufactured by” on the label qualifies them as a potential source along with the company stamp on the tools. Not unlike BGI stamped on their mold! This is not an absolute position on my part I’m only following a trail. Plus the concept that these tools require complex machinery to manufacture is not true. They are very basic in Overall design.

Murph

[mmaher94087]

I, too, would hope that some sort of manufacturing contract may be found to prove the pedigree of these tools. Until then, I take the marks as company property marks (like AM Express revolvers). I worked for Litton Industries which was a big corporation and everything valued over $500 was stamped or marked to identify their (Litton's) ownership of said item. Litton didn't make the items but they sure marked them to identify them in case of theft.

[BMur]

Here is some "ROCK SOLID PROOF" from a circa 1882 Union Metallic Cartridge Company catalog that the company sold reloading tools....Not only reloading tools but "Smith and Wesson" caliber reloading tools. I also have documented an "extensive line" of tools for all rifle calibers as well that were clearly sold by UMC & Co.

Included in my research documents is a Remington Distributor listing of reloading tools sold by Remington just prior to bankruptcy that is not even close to the list that UMC put out. A very extensive line of tools. Notice the price is listed as well for each tool. NOT PROPERTY STAMPS but items to be "SOLD" to the paying buyer. These photo's represent a small portion of what UMC sold. They also sold literally every caliber of Sharps and Ballard single shot rifle implements as seen in my previous posted photo of the UMC complete kit.

It's information like this that put's UMC at the top of the list as the source for these early reloading kits. They were a very large and early manufacturer of reloading tools.

What I needed was simply their company stamp on an early iron mold that supported what I already have.

NOTE: Notice also that when UMC & Co sold another manufacturers product they "clearly" listed the manufacturer of same. BGI and PT? both located in Bridgeport, CT. They DO NOT list another manufacturer with the Smith & Wesson reloading tools!!!!


Murph

[first-model]

Originally Posted by BMur

"ROCK SOLID PROOF"

Three grainy scans of a catalog don't prove a thing.

A good friend of mine owns a large machine shop in North Carolina that makes parts for AR-15's. I can assure you that you've never heard of his company, but he supplies parts to make of the name-brand manufacturers that all of us are familiar with. In the course of producing, say, takedown pins, he will introduce some very minor variations to make each manufacturer's part "unique." In truth, they're all coming out of the same milling machine, and they're all essentially the same part ... but each manufacturer has its own "variant."

Ergo, you buy a fancy name brand AR and you think you're getting parts from that company because they "look" different than everyone else's.

It's marketing, Murph, and the catalog that you so terribly represented here is exactly the same thing. You're seeing exactly what the manufacturer wants you to see—not the inner workings of the company and the actual mechanisms of their supply chain. At this point you have zero information about who was actually making what.

An extensive catalog of offerings doesn't mean that UMC actually made any of it. It could mean that, but it could also mean that they were simply purchasing reloading tools from a lot of other companies, and/or outsourcing the manufacturing of these products to other companies. As I said before, manufacturing ammunition is very different than manufacturing built molds, and I contend that the latter wouldn't necessarily have been UMC's strength. Why would they tool up to make niche parts like built molds, when there were lots of other companies that had already invested the capital needed to make these sorts of items?

If you want to be taken seriously as a historian, you need to stop inventing stories and then hand-fitting the evidence to fit that narrative ... and instead, think broadly about the spectrum of possibilities.

Lastly: in your last post, you said that "here is some "ROCK SOLID PROOF" from a circa 1882 Union Metallic Cartridge Company catalog that the company sold reloading tools." But we were never arguing that they were selling reloading tools, which they unquestionably were. We were discussing who actually made the tools. Big difference there ... and you don't get to move the goalposts halfway into the debate.

Mike

[reddog81]

Originally Posted by BMur

Here is some "ROCK SOLID PROOF" from a circa 1882 Union Metallic Cartridge Company catalog that the company sold reloading tools....Not only reloading tools but "Smith and Wesson" caliber reloading tools. I also have documented an "extensive line" of tools for all rifle calibers as well that were clearly sold by UMC & Co.

Was anybody disputing that UMC sold reloading tools? The rock solid proof being the provided doesn’t match with the claims being asserted.

[BMur]

I thought that would get a rise in some members. UMC & Co has the longest line of reloading tools that I have found. Beyond any other "company of that period"...Where exactly were they purchasing the long line of tools for sale? and then stamping their company name on them? From Smith and Wesson? Literally every caliber of rifle and pistol manufactured at that time....Literally! and why not? They knew exactly the specs on each since they made the rounds!!!

Lets say that they "ran" or hired out a small machine shop in Bridgeport, Ct. to manufacture these tools? To me that's the same as making them. Major Gun makers are proven to have contracted small firms to manufacture brass parts, wood grips, hammers, small parts, etc but are not questioned as to those often major parts being sourced out. The product is still say "A COLT".

Authentic documents have been located by the Norwich Historical society that confirm gun manufacturers were having small parts( Hammers, triggers, cylinders also) made by various machine shops in that town. The final product being assembled in the ultimate named manufacture's plant.

Nobody seems to care about the small shop...At least most collectors don't. If it's stamped "Colts Patent" they don't care that the brass molds were actually made by a third party...They only pay for the "Colt's Patent" final product. Welcome to the U.S.A. "Made in China"....

The point of this research is to locate the Product Source Manufacturer....Not "Bubba's machine shop"... Truth be known that "Bubba" made the molds but "UMC & CO" is the Source Manufacturer of the molds...Without UMC & Co... Bubba would never have made the molds. If you're trying to tell me that Smith & Wesson made all these molds and tools, You're dreaming!!!

Murph

[opoefc]

Interesting debate. Take any new automobile - Ford, Chevy, Chrysler, etc - something like 65% of the assembled car was made by vendors providing the part, which may, or may not, have the vendor's name on them. I'm sure gun makers 150 yrs ago would buy quality parts from any source that was cheaper than it cost the gun maker to produce itself. Business is business. Ed

[BMur]

Thanks Ed!

There is a significant benefit from research regarding these tools and Smith & Wesson reloading tool collectors.

If we except the concept of a multi-company involvement in the "Pre-1887" loading kits assembly and also the documented "end of involvement" of both UMC & Co. and Remington with the Bankruptcy beginning in 1886? Then we can move on with the research and focus on the "Improved Tool kit" (See photo) that was introduced "solely" by Smith & Wesson in 1887. No other major company involvement has been documented!

That 1887 improved reloading kit most definitely involved Smith & Wesson in the manufacture there of. I believe that Smith & Wesson did in fact manufacture that set in it's entirety. Possibly contracting a box maker only.

The reloading tool industry in 1887 saw significant changes that included the insulated wood handles on the bullet molds (Peanut mold for Smith & Wesson kits) Winchester also introduced a wood handle mold same year as well as Ideal offering a single cavity bullet mold with wood handles. Marlin molds are also documented having wood handles...."ALL introduced in and around 1887".

Research supports that the kits made from 1887 to approximately 1912 were in fact manufactured by Smith & Wesson. The reborn Remington Arms Company and UMC after the end of the bankruptcy and subsequent merger no longer offered reloading tools for sale.


Murph

[mmaher94087]

Hasn't it been determined that S&W had the only drop-forge in the Connecticut Valley at this time? Isn't it logical that S&W would supply raw forgings, if not complete molds, to other companies? The valley runs from Long Island sound all the way to Quebec, Canada. Illion, New York (Remington) is only a stones throw from the river and cheap transportation. My money is on S&W producing the molds and other companies filling the boxes with the other necessities like the powder measure. Maybe S&W produced the wood mallets too as they had a "stocking" department that handled wood for stocks. And, yes, S&W contracted the pasteboard boxes.

[BMur]

Anytime you research an Old Factory, one rule of thumb is when looking at the original drawing of same? Is there a 150-200 foot chimney on site? That represents an on site foundry...Metal works? They can make anything on site. Remington was "Huge" and had many on site foundry's. They manufactured many products at separate factory locations and basically "over extended themselves" into bankruptcy. UMC & Co. also had an onsite foundry. See drawings and original foundry works inside drawing.... They could manufacture basically anything from raw iron, copper, etc. All they needed was the raw materials.

All of the firearm manufacturers of that ERA basically had an on site foundry and were self sufficient except for a very few that relied on contracted out firms to manufacture their patents or small parts. Those few had an "in town" contractor to manufacture parts. Same town, same location. Cost's a lot of money to move IRON....It's heavy.

Not to mention that many of the early dies and tools depict casting flaws that would have been eliminated with a forging. Especially a drop forging.

Murph

[mmaher94087]

I'm sure that most manufacturers of metal products had foundries to produce castings. The two photos (UMC and Remington Standard Typewriter) would have such facilities. One for lead bullets and the other for cast iron typewriter frames. I doubt that either would have a drop forge. It has been stated that S&W sold time on their forge to produce frames for other gun manufacturers.