38-44 Target Ideal tool

I recently found this at auction. The seller poorly listed it and did not know the caliber. I suspected it was a target tool so I bid on it and got it for a song.
The wife was wondering why I jumped up and down when I opened the package. The 38-44 Target tool is pretty rare. How rare? This is the first time I’ve had the opportunity to get one.

Cleaned it up and it has perfect deep stamp markings. I’m happy with the turn out.

What I’m wondering is if this tool is right? I have seen a 32-44 T without a bullet mold but never a 38-44T.
It doesn’t look to me like the mold block was removed but I’m not 100% on this one.

Anyone have one of these without the bullet mold?

Murph

yes Murph I also have in my collection an Ideal tool without the mold (44S&WR)

Im new here my name is Stephen and im no good at the computer thing cant even find where to post but i did find this and just what i was looking for. I bought a antique 38-44 and would like some info about it please. Im in Nova Scotia canada i bought from Alberta was told it came out of drawer in Missouri and its a model 3 target 6.5 inch barrel it is in tip top shape for its age the serial is 2781. Any info would be greatly appreciated.

Ordered to customers spec’s

The more you study Ideal tools the more you see how many options the customer had. I thought the No.3 tool only came with double adjustable dies but looking at an 1894 ad you can see in photo 1 that the customer had the option of a single adjustable die as well.

I can also see the advantage. Saving $1 from purchasing the Target tool with the mold block ( photo 2) It makes sense to just save a buck on the No.3 tool and purchasing a separate insulated handle bullet mold in the same caliber for $1.25. That way the tool stays cool and you don’t burn your hands molding bullets. I’ve molded bullets with these tools and you have to use double insulated leather gloves and it still burns through.

Also, you can’t just go by what was advertised by Ideal in say 1895 as what was only available in any given Ideal tool.

Photo 3 is from the Ideal collectors website. Notice many calibers listed and witnessed by collectors in the No.3 tool that is not listed in the 1895 ad. That includes the tool just presented by danalex. That caliber is not listed in 1895 but I’m sure it would have been manufactured for any customer who simply asked for it.

You figure it cost Ideal .50 cents to manufacture the tool. That’s a $2 profit for each sale. They would not let that customer just walk out of the office in 1895. $2 was a lot of money back then.

As a customer back then you could literally order anything you wanted from Ideal.

This also supports my researched theory that many of the tools were altered on site in the basement shop. In my opinion they had to be in order to make the sale. There is no way they had every variation of tool possible in the office for sale. Alterations would have been the norm.

My 38-44 example could actually have originally been a No.2 target tool that Ideal simply pulled off the wall and gave to the machinist in the basement with instructions to remove the mold block and polish. Same with danalex 44 Russian tool could have originally actually had a mold block but was ordered without and simply had an adjustable die machined and threaded onto the tool.

Murph

Photos

Yote said:

Im new here my name is Stephen and im no good at the computer thing cant even find where to post but i did find this and just what i was looking for. I bought a antique 38-44 and would like some info about it please. Im in Nova Scotia canada i bought from Alberta was told it came out of drawer in Missouri and its a model 3 target 6.5 inch barrel it is in tip top shape for its age the serial is 2781. Any info would be greatly appreciated.

Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum,
You need to post some photo’s.

Murph

38-44

Hi thanks for replying i managed to upload some pics of the gun.

Late long frame?

Yote,
That looks like a late one with long frame. The cylinder length should be 1 9/16th. If it is a late one with long cylinder only a few hundred were made in the 38-44 T. I have one in my collection also.
I also see what looks like early London proofs on the cylinder and barrel. Can you confirm it’s proofed?
The early proofs look like an X with little flags kinda. Should also be some stamped on the frame and every cylinder flute. You might need a magnifying glass to see them cuz they are pretty small.
I’m seeing high domed screws typical of an England shipped gun.

They would re-work them and proof fire them to their particulars.

Nice and rare gun!

Murph

Better photo

Here is a photo of the proofs I think might be on your Target 38-44.

Murph

BMur said:

Here is a photo of the proofs I think might be on your Target 38-44.

Murph

Click to expand...

Thanks Murph for the great info, cant really see proof marks but it does have that cylinder size. I got a jewellers loupe somewhere i going to try to find it and have a better look in good light.

Not a 38 but a 32

Here is my tool and molds for a 32-44. Have not used them yet but plan on doing it some day.

Started collecting these after I started collecting revolvers. They are cheaper and still fill the desire to hunt for something unique. Besides, they are a good addition to the revolver.

Boulder350 said:

Here is my tool ... for a 32-44. Have not used them yet but plan on doing it some day.

Click to expand...

The double-adustable die with your Ideal No.3 tool, numbered 122 with seating screw numbered 252 (for Ideal bullet No.308252), would be correct for .32 A.C.P. (aka .32 Auto). At various times, die number 122 was also listed for use with .32 S&W, .32 S&W Long, and .32 Colt New Police with seating screws respectively numbered 249 (for Ideal bullet No.313249), 226 (for Ideal bullet No.313226), and 57 (for Ideal bullet No.31357). For loading .32-44 S&W, the correct die would be numbered 24. This would have been paired with a seating screw numbered either 62 (for Ideal bullet No.32362) or 63 (for Ideal round ball No.32363).

With the dimensional differences between these cartridges, it is doubtful die No.122 (for relatively short cartridges when compared to the .32-44) would have sufficient thread-length to allow screwing out far enough for use with the longer .32-44, not to mention the difficulty to be encountered seating a 0.323" diameter bullet (correct for the .32-44) into a case with a seating die designed for at most a 0.308" to 0.313" diameter (correct for the others).

FWIW, your No.3 tool was manufactured after Ideal was acquired by the Lyman Gun Sight Co. in October of 1925, as evidenced by the Middlefield, Conn. address.

At some point along the way your No.3 tool and No.122 die were paired with each other, but it is highly unlikely that they left the manufacturer together.

Jim

I pulled out some original fired 32-44 casings and inserted one into the tool. I then screwed the die into the tool until it made contact with the casing. It looks to me like the die will put a slight radius crimp on the case mouth. The bullet seater number 252 is screwed almost all the way into the die and it looks like it will work to load the conical bullet fully, or close to fully into the case. If the lock ring was removed the bullet seater would definitely seat the bullet below the case mouth. It would not work for the round ball load with 5 grains of powder.

I have never used one of these tools so that's a guess on my part.

Where can I learn more about these tools?

Late production tools

Ideal tools were manufactured for many years and then taken over by Marlin in the early 1900’s, then Talbot during the mystery years of WWI and beyond until Lyman took over years later in 1925.

I see many transitions in the Ideal manuals beginning in 1891 up to the late 1920’s when Lyman was running the show. I’ve also seen some original nickeled dies on early tools with mystery numbers on them that are not listed on charts that I’m aware of. Some also are not numbered whatsoever. That includes later 310 dies. I have several. Not marked at all. It’s not an exact science from my experience.

Marks’ tool is a late Middlefield tool representing post 1925 production for a caliber that was obsolete many years prior. It makes perfect sense to me that Lyman at that later date would use what parts they had available at that specific time in history to manufacture a tool for a long obsolete gun and caliber. See attached chart.

It’s like trying to compare a tool manufactured in 1884 to a tool manufactured in 1927 by two totally different companies. In my opinion there would most definitely be a difference in the final result. In fact there is when we compare the early tool to the late tool in the same caliber.

I think its part of the history of the reloading tool industry. It can be compared to the Major Distributor altering items like firearms and even tools to meet the customers needs. They don’t always match the known records and charts but the tool is authentic.

I’d also like to add that many of the early records are not available since early bullet molds and tools are actually not listed in the earliest known catalogs. That includes all of the outside lubricated bullet designs for the Smith and Wesson calibers prior to 1887. I have documented early Ideal tools in 32,38,44, and 45 Smith & Wesson outside lubricated bullet designs that are listed nowhere! So a lot of the early records are actually lost or haven’t been found yet.

Murph

Murph, Pls PM me. Thanks, Ed

BMur said:

Murph

Click to expand...

What were the columns labeled as?

Pm sent

opoefc said:

Murph, Pls PM me. Thanks, Ed

Click to expand...

Hey Ed,
I sent you a PM. Not sure if it went through. It delayed then sat there for a while.


Murph

310 chart

Model19man said:

What were the columns labeled as?

Click to expand...

Here ya go.
I have several earlier lists but this is a post 1948 310 list that I have on my laptop for quick reference. It covers most of the info needed for quick reference. There are some holes though.
The other earlier lists I have I know where they are but they are under a lot of research material. I’m working on other projects right now that are very productive and I don’t want to get side tracked.
If you want to see the earlier lists I’ll post them next week or so.

Murph

The .32-44 cartridge remained in Ideal's (Lyman's) list of available loading tools and dies thru 1939 (Ideal Handbook No.33). The following year a number of long-obsolete cartridges, including the .32-44, were no longer listed. It was also at this time that the tools (handles) lost their nickel plating and inst3ad were finished by a process which left them a deep purple color referred to by collectors as "plum".

Up to 1939, dies numbered 122 were, without fail or substitution, specified for .32 A.C.P., and the seating screw for the standard bullet (No.308252, later redesignated 311252) was 252. During this same time, the dies for .32-44 were consistently, and again without substitution, designated as 24, and the standard bullet called out as No.32362 for which the proper seating screw was 62.

By the time the first edition of Lyman's Cast Bullet Handbook was published in 1958, lists showed the correct seating screw for 308252/311252 to be 465. Meanwhile the correct seating screw for 32362 was listed as 470. This was the result of Lyman paring down the number of seating screws, which had grown to nearly 500... many of which were virtual duplicates or near duplicates.

All that said to say this:

Mark's ..32-44 tool, a Lyman manufactured No.3, is nickel plated and therefore dates between 1925 and 1939.

The die which now accompanies that tool is numbered 122 and has seating screw 252. This combination was consistently, up to 1939, the correct setup for .32 A.C.P. A few years later and the seating screw would be numbered 465. Also of note is the nickel finish on the die and screw. By 1935, at the latest, Ideal dies were now finished blue.

The correct dies for .32-44 were numbered 24, from the earliest list of die numbers to all the way thru to the last list in which that cartridge appears, and the bullet seating screw throughout that same time would have been 62. Without fail.

Even had this tool somehow have been cobbled together at the factory after the changes to seating screws, they still would be different for .32 A.C.P. (465) and .32-44 (470).

While the present combination .32-44 tool and .32 A.C.P. die may work to assemble .32 -44 cartridges, it remains highly unlikely that they left Middlefield in the same box.

Jim

Hi There,

I am interested in the old 310 Ideal reloading tool. I am curious
when did Lyman change their handles from caliber specific sizes
to the more adaptable "long" and "short" handles using the threaded
adapters and adjustable extractor hook (but still made from iron
or steel)? And when did Lyman change the 310 tool to cast
aluminum?

Cheers!
Webb

Here my collection of reloading tools for the 32-44 and 38-44. From what I understand the first 3 are #2 tools and only have a bullet seater.

If I understand correctly BMur's tool is a #3 model and only has a bullet seater. The last one in the attached picture would also be a #3 tool but it has a die and a bullet seater.

What was the standard configuration for this #3 tool for the 32-44's and the 38-44's, die and a bullet seater or just the bullet seater? Was there a standard?