38-44 Target Ideal tool

[BMur]

Factory vs Agency

Jim,
That’s great info!
I agree with most of what you posted.

We have to consider the many agency offices around the country that represented Ideal, Marlin, and later Lyman as legitimate suppliers of Ideal tools and as a 100% legitimate source of Marks tool. They did not have the benefit of raw production like the factory but would have had a fully qualified machinist on site.
See photo 1&2 of the on site shop of Pacific gunsight circa 1925 in San Francisco. Able to fabricate any die in specified caliber the customer requested.

See photo 3&4
This original authentic and rare circa 1906 Ideal San Francisco agency marked reloading manual not only proves their existence but the exact address in San Francisco just prior to the 1906 earthquake and fire. The agency marking is part of the original cover print from Ideal. It was not stamped by the agency after receipt from Ideal.

You will also note the name listed is a well known dealer in firearms during that early period. His name shows up often in my research of early Target weapons and special order items that are also found having non factory characteristics. Often also from factory shipping ledgers shipped directly to him by name.

The loading die found on Marks tool stamped 122 must have purposely been machined to load the 32-44 case. A 32 Auto or 32 S&W die is too small in diameter to load the 32-44 case with .323 bullet diameter. Simply said the 32-44 case won’t fit in the 122 die without machining.

This supports professional alteration or machining of the die to conform to loading the special 32-44 Target round. This alteration was not performed by Bubba using a drill press. It had to be completed by a competent machinist. Also, Ideal offered two separate plungers. One for the conical and a separate plunger for the ball or gallery round. One plunger did not perform both tasks.

In my opinion remote agency offices would have to often use what parts they had on hand at the time to manufacture what the customer wanted. With a machinist on site the task would be quickly accomplished. However, to a collector reading known charts and numbers 100+ years later, something will always be amiss. Even though the charts are often found altered by Ideal from year to year.
See last photo of an earlier chart that lists a different die number for the 32 S&W and “Special” for the 32 Auto as compared to my previous chart that shows die 122 for all 3 calibers.

So it’s not an exact science from my researched standpoint when it comes to the final product it ultimately depends on where it was assembled and at what time in history.

Murph

 

[Boulder350]

Here is another variation of the reloading tool from Ideal for the 32-44. It does not have a bullet sizer feature. The end has the metal for the primer seater, but it was never completed. It has the primer feature in the handle, but no bullet sizer for a target loading.

Is there a good place to get a replacement sprue cutter for mine that is broken? Is that the right term?

 

[BMur]

Fabrication

Great collection Mark!
The more you post the more you support my point. You can see clear differences in the machining of the plungers of your single fixed die tools. Location of knurling. Some with, some without.
There was no standard for tools that came special ordered. The number 3 tool offered many options that included a single loading die, or a double adjustable loader, with or without a muzzle crimper, two different plungers, etc.
You can see from my 1937 photo from a catalog from Pacific Gunsight on Hayes Street in San Francisco that they also offered the Number 3 tool.
I posted photos of their on site machine shop.
What would it have taken for that photo’d machinist to fabricate say a die for the 41 Long Colt? If the customer wanted the number 3 tool in that caliber? It would be simple for a machinist to fabricate one.

I make my own sprues for Ideal tools missing same. It’s not hard, just time consuming. I’ll look and see if I have some pre-fabricated but not til Sunday as I’m away from my parts.

Also,
The 38-44 and 32-44 tool would not normally require a double adjustable die since the case was designed with no crimp you would only need a reloading die and two plungers. One for ball and another for conical. Mine has the ball plunger. The advantage of a double adjustable die would be for Shorter overall case lengths if desired.

Murph

 

[Boulder350]

Thought I uploaded the picture last night.

Thanks for your offer Murph

 

[BMur]

Pm

Mark,
See PM

Murph

 

[TripleLock]

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

In 1947, Ideal (Lyman) introduced the screw-in primer seating die, and the primer seating station on the handles was eliminated. This was the birth of the No.310 tool, combining the No.3 and No.10 tools. At this time the handles would still be of blued (plum) steel, and caliber marked.

Handbook No.37 (1950) saw the elimination of the caliber-marked handles. Handles, still made of steel, were now marked with a number (1, 2, 3, etc.) Cartidges with the same, or similar, head diameter could be loaded with the same handles by simply swapping out the appropriate dies. This same numbering system would be later used for the now familiar removable adapters.

Handbook No.38 (1951) saw the beginning of the end of the old Ideal system of numbering the dies. New cartridges added to the list were designated by their caliber: .222 Remington as 222; and the .22 Varminter, which had moved from the wildcat to the commercial, as 22/250; and in 1953 the .308 Winchester as 308, changed to 308W by 1955.

Handbook No.39 (1953) introduced the numbered removable adapters and the adjustable extractor hook. Handles, still made of steel, were now marked "S" for small, "L" for large, and "SPL" for special (.348 Winchester and a few others used this size, which used dies slightly larger in diameter than the usual approx. 5/8" diameter dies).

The old system of numbering the dies continued in use as of the publication of Handbook No.40 (1955) but was completely gone by Handbook No.41 (1957). The change from steel handles to alloy also occurred about this same time. It should be noted that Lyman had recognized as early as the mid-1930s that certain cartridges could be loaded satisfactorily with the same dies, and they had been changing the lists in the Handbook to reflect this.

Jim

 

[TripleLock]

What would it have taken for that photo’d machinist to fabricate say a die for the 41 Long Colt? If the customer wanted the number 3 tool in that caliber? It would be simple for a machinist to fabricate one.

It would have been even simpler to just order it from Ideal (or, after 1925, Lyman). Afterall, .41 Long Colt was already readily available in the No.3 tool at least as early as 1900, either the outside-lubricated (die no.71) thru 1935, or the inside-lubricated (die no.72) thru 1948. Why re-invent the wheel?

From the very first notice, in 1893, the No.3 tool was advertised as "made for all American shells which are over one inch in length," and would eventually be expanded to include those shorter than one inch. The lists in the Handbooks of cartridges for which the No.3 was available, although extensive and ever-growing, were never actually complete. Many cartridges for which the tool is known to have been available were simply never listed.

Jim

 

[mrcvs]

What is a good book about all these early reloading tools? I find them fascinating!

Is there an equivalent to Flayderman’s for all this early stuff?

 

[TripleLock]

What is a good book about all these early reloading tools? I find them fascinating!

Is there an equivalent to Flayderman’s for all this early stuff?

Probably the best single-source would be the two volume "Antique Reloading Tools of the Black Powder Era, 1850-1910" by Tom Rowe and Ed Curtis. Lots of good information and excellent photos of many rare tools. It's a good place to start. A bit pricey, but well worth it if you have more than a casual interest in the old tools.

Jim

 

[BMur]

1925

Jim,
We have to account for all of these odd tools that don’t match the charts and numbers. There are many of them and when we don’t label them “Bubba”, we see a clear pattern that I attribute to period alteration by period machinists on site. Why? Because that was the easiest and most profitable solution. It satisfied the customer and made money for the on site proprietor.

If ,as an example, a customer wanted a caliber that was not available at a remote location, agency, or distributor, they did have much easier options other than placing a long distance tool order to New Haven.

From 1884-1933 a major city like San Francisco did not even have functional business telephone service available. First phone directory is 1933. Telegraph lines were known to fail during the winter due to 25ft of snow over the Sierra Mountain range.

That’s the reality of that early period.

On site special orders fits like a glove and fills the gap when we find these odd tools that are professionally produced as altered. As technology, transportation, and communication improved, on site shops disappeared and so did these odd alterations. I think they are a Legitimate part of early reloading tool history and they should not be cast aside as Bubba junk. I like them a lot.


Murph

 

[BMur]

Blanks

I’ll go further by saying that some of these remote locations may have received “blanks”.

By that I mean they received unmarked tools and dies from Ideal by request. Why would Ideal care? They are still making money with every sale and there is no patent infringement since the blank would still be stamped with the company logo.
Same thing happened with Major Distributors receiving spare parts made by Smith&Wesson. Clearly listed in old catalogs. They would replace them, refinish them, change calibers, barrels, engrave, case them. I don’t think the clerk did that. Maybe a machinist?? I think that’s obvious.

I have seen and have unmarked dies. How can a die leave the factory unmarked? Doesn’t make much sense to me unless it was done on purpose.
These blanks provided machinists with the ability to fabricate any caliber for individual customer needs.
There is so much existing evidence that this took place it would be easy to present with an accurate survey taken.

Tools that have the caliber stamped off center or under the original caliber. In some cases way off center in lieu of the original caliber being removed and replaced with a special order caliber.

If the machinist was good you could claim the tool is factory original but the historical truth is it may have been professionally fabricated from a blank by a remote machinist to look and function like a factory original in lieu of a special order from a client who would purchase only the finest product.


Murph