have a few question regarding an early smith & wesson 44 double action first model re

[BMur]

Little Big Horn

Well,
The 2004 report claims of the cases found in 44 WCF at the sight of the Little Big Horn or surrounding area, They estimate they came from 11 Winchester 73's that were used and confirmed 3 were used by Indians.

The report is very general and claims the cases found are either Milbank or boxer primed. I took another look at your X-Ray photo of the Milbank primed case, and it sure looks like it's a folded head case with a centerfire type insert those pre-date the solid head case because the X-Ray shows a dense area near the head of the case suggesting an insert but no way to prove it without cutting one open Lengthwise. I know, the cartridge collectors are having a fit about now.

***That's great reference on the Little Big Horn!

Where are those cases???

Murph

 

[Bryan Austin]

Well,
The 2004 report claims of the cases found in 44 WCF at the sight of the Little Big Horn or surrounding area, They estimate they came from 11 Winchester 73's that were used and confirmed 3 were used by Indians.

The report is very general and claims the cases found are either Milbank or boxer primed. I took another look at your X-Ray photo of the Milbank primed case, and it sure looks like it's a folded head case with a centerfire type insert those pre-dates the solid head case because the X-Ray shows a dense area near the head of the case suggesting an insert but no way to prove it without cutting one open Lengthwise. I know, the cartridge collectors are having a fit about now.

Murph

AH yes, the insert would certainly cause a more dense image...nice catch!!

Yes, if you follow the link I posted, you can see all the research I did for the battlefield cases to post it where folks can see it with ease.
Chasing the 44-40 - Little Bighorn

The cases found are too long when scaled to match a normal case. I also made my own short cases and actually shot them, but as expected, accuracy was non-existent.

Once again,

Photo 1, Milbank primed cartridge x-ray with replica cartridge for comparison
Photo 2, Case found at the battlefield in comparison with the replica Milbank cut cartridge. (case size, not Milbank primed of course).
Photo 3, Normal case in comparrison with the shorter Milbank primed x-ray cartridge
Photo 4, Normal length case in comparison with case found at the battlefield.

Certainly doesn't mean they are not of the folded head type, just not Milbank Primed type cases.

Oh, I also forgot that
Photo 4, In the x-ray cartridge, there is an example of a Milbank Primed case head that is of the folded head type.....of course, we all know that other Milbank Primed cases were of the folded head type.

Also on the webpage, I have information on why it was not used. I am certain not the only reasons but info I found anyway. Since folks don;t like clicking outside links, I'll just repost it here.

Milbank Primer Issues

The Delays

On 9-24-1962, W.M. Bellemore wrote about the Milbank Primer. He tells us that it was patented (Pat. #103,641) on May, 31, 1870. During the early development of the Winchester 73's 44 cal. cartridge, the Milbank primer design was used. It appears that this centerfire primer design was flawed and troublesome. Mostly from loose primers by the why they were inserted into the primer pocket. The primer was developed with a dimple in it and it much resembled a spent cartridge when in fact they were not fired. This cartridge with the new primer was very short lived and it has been said that some of the earliest deliveries of the 73' were delayed until the newly Winchester patented boxer primer system was released.

An x-rayed cartridge, shows a typical 200gr lead round nose, flat point bullet. The case is shorter than the 44-40 case we have today but the AOL was the same. The bullet is only seated about .21". The "Dimple" is evident as well. Not only did Winchester have to come up with a new primer, they had to redesign the whole case!

However, it is still not clear if these new rifles were shipped with Milbank Primed cartridges or if no rifles were shipped until the new cartridge was finished.

The Milbank primer is evident sticking up from the pocket of this only known Milbank primed 44-40 cartridge x-ray example. From the looks of the thickness of the lower end of the case, this looks to be a solid-head design. Bottom right photo is not part of this particular cartridge, and is of the "folded" design.

Note Dimpled Primer, and how perfectly it is centered.

The wedged shape primer was notorious for coming loose and causing problems. This appears to be a folded head but is only a drawing and should not be a 44-40 case.

edited to add a photo of my replicated milbanked primed shorter cartridge case..
.
.
.

 

[Bryan Austin]

This Milbank Primed case head drawing sketch is minus the insert, so maybe the 44 WCF Milbank Primed case didn't have the insert.

Holly Cow, I I didn't realize this was the revolver topic, My bad guys!

I will stop replying to it.

 

[Jim Watson]

My fault. There were a lot of different types of cartridges in those days and it is interesting to see them kicked around.

 

[Bryan Austin]

BMur, here ya go: 44-40 Folded Head Cases - General Ammunition Discussion - International Ammunition Association Web Forum

 

[BMur]

Folded head case

Yeah,
Oh well, probably should have started another thread. I think we’ve covered it though.
The drawing is definitely a folded head case. Transitions were definitely apparent during that time.
Problem being proving when since the cases are not marked and worth a small fortune now, research would be expensive.
I still think those Little Big Horn relics are the answer. If only they’d share?

Murph

 

[BMur]

Folded head case

Thank You Bryan for that patent number.

When we pull up the patent and both look at the drawing and read Mr. Milbank’s description, we see a folded head case with an insert at the base to strengthen the head. It’s definitely not a solid head. You can clearly see two pieces at the base. See photos.

Even with this document and drawing we can’t be 100% certain since the final product is often different from the patent drawing.

Which puts us back to square 1. We must cut a case longitudinal and examine it closely.

Murph

 

[steelslaver]

This Milbank Primed case head drawing sketch is minus the insert, so maybe the 44 WCF Milbank Primed case didn't have the insert.

Holly Cow, I I didn't realize this was the revolver topic, My bad guys!

I will stop replying to it.

I found the discussion on the cases much more interesting than that on the gun

 

[Bryan Austin]

Thank You Bryan for that patent number.

When we pull up the patent and both look at the drawing and read Mr. Milbank’s description, we see a folded head case with an insert at the base to strengthen the head. It’s definitely not a solid head. You can clearly see two pieces at the base. See photos.

Even with this document and drawing we can’t be 100% certain since the final product is often different from the patent drawing.

Which puts us back to square 1. We must cut a case longitudinal and examine it closely.

Murph

I never doubted it not being a folded head. What I wanted to know is if all Milbank primed folded head cases had a primer reinforcing insert. I failed to ask correctly.

The drawing of the patent milbank primer case example is poor and reflects two surfaces at the primer rather than just one. Could be a reinforcement layer on the head, or just a poor sketch.

Also, looking at the 44-40 cartridge box linage again, there was no room for 44-40 folded head cases prior to the solid head case.

I just find it very hard to believe that Winchester would go from the Milbank primer folded head case, to a folded head case that equipped the new Winchester primer, then to the solid head case with the new primer all in the matter of 1 year (1874 solid head box label). I certainly do think it is plausible that other Winchester manufactured cartridges already well into production switched/transitioned to the solid head type by 1880 or to 1884. Makes more industrial sense! This is what leads me to think Winchester went from the Milbank primed 44-40 case right to the new solid head case. The cost for an additional step would have been astronomical.

Or, the dates given to the 1874 box is incorrect. The dates of the current box labels makes more sense than the missing folded head link that may not even be a missing link.

Photos Attached

1. 1873 “New Model of 1873”
   
2. 1874-1876 “Model Winchester 1873” (solid head)
   
3. 1876-1877 Side Sealed (solid head)
   
4. 1877-1883 Unheadstamped (solid head)
   
5. 1884 Headstamped (solid head)

There are way too many of these cartridge and box examples for a folded head to not be present.

As for right now, there is more solid (no pun intended) evidence that there was no folded head case (excluding the Milbank primed case) prior to the solid head case than there is from a possible mis-interpreted statement in a ledger that applied to other cartridges already in production.
.
.
.
.

 

[BMur]

Research

The best method to research is to always begin and build based on fact. Patent reference is documented fact it’s not opinion.

Antique cartridge boxes are pure guess as to when a specific label was produced and in what specific year. Early boxes lack lot numbers so we can only speculate year of production. I’m not saying the dates aren’t close but I am saying that they are not exact.

I can reference factually antique firearms that were manufactured for only 1 year and discontinued due to a significant flaw found in the design. Usually accompanied by an improvement to eliminate the flaw. So a cartridge design flaw is very possible and an improvement introduced is extremely likely to eliminate that flaw in a very short period of time.

I have a cartridge patent reference book that is full of cartridge design improvements from 1869-1882. I mean a huge number attempting to perfect the centerfire design and primer pocket. This early time of cartridge manufacture was filled with issues that needed improvement.


Murph

 

[Bryan Austin]

The best method to research is to always begin and build based on fact. Patent reference is documented fact it’s not opinion.

Antique cartridge boxes are pure guess as to when a specific label was produced and in what specific year. Early boxes lack lot numbers so we can only speculate year of production. I’m not saying the dates aren’t close but I am saying that they are not exact.

I can reference factually antique firearms that were manufactured for only 1 year and discontinued due to a significant flaw found in the design. Usually accompanied by an improvement to eliminate the flaw. So a cartridge design flaw is very possible and an improvement introduced is extremely likely to eliminate that flaw in a very short period of time.

I have a cartridge patent reference book that is full of cartridge design improvements from 1869-1882. I mean a huge number attempting to perfect the centerfire design and primer pocket. This early time of cartridge manufacture was filled with issues that needed improvement.


Murph

No need to debate any further here on the 44 Double Action topic, it is what it is and as soon as an example is found, I will edit my material, until then....there is no 44-40 folded head case other than the very short lived Milbank Primed case. I was told there was no Dupont powder keg data "wrappers" and I found one. Doesn't mean they didn't exist, just want more evidence....and again, for now more evidence debunks rather than supports.

44-40 Folded Head Cases - #5 by SavvyJack - General Ammunition Discussion - International Ammunition Association Web Forum

If you want to talk about this more, chime in over at the link I provided.

Feel free to leave the last word ;-)

 

[superdave269]

I love the way this thread has developed. Thanks for adding all the information regarding LBH & the development of the 44-40. I have a long time interest in these areas.

[/IMG]

 

[BMur]

Original “Factory” loads

I forgot that I had this “Factory” recommended loading data from a Smith & Wesson Catalog circa 1892.

Notice that basically all calibers higher than 32 cal were loaded with FFG powder. Not FFFG!

The only exception is the reduced Gallery/ball load and the 38-44 Target load.

Murph

 

[handejector]

I can't believe you guys don't recognize those Jay Scott plastic pearl grips! They made black and white pearl, stag, and ivory out of PLASTIC with the wood backers.
Google em!
jay scott grips - Google Search

The 44 Frontiers I have owned usually lack a caliber mark.
The Op's gun is refinished, possibly by the Factory.
I can't tell from his pic if the extractor is blue or white.


Here is a neat old original 4", not cut. The grips are original and numbered to the gun. It had no caliber mark even though it is #7252. I do not remember if I checked the extractor for a serial number, but it is white.

 

[Bryan Austin]

BMur

After further correspondence with Guy Hildebrand, I have updated the UMC portion of the website to reflect the probability of the folded head cases used by UMC. With the design of the Orcutt primer, I feel confident (not that my opinion counts...lol) that in order to use the Orcutt primer, the primer pocket in solid head cases would probably be too deep. Thus, the correct folded head, Orcutt primer design sketch by Randy should give enough evidence.


However, since Winchester patented their own primer by 1874, I am keeping that data as is.

Like I said, I am Teachable!!

I had completely forgotten that I had started updating that page a while back when Guy first contacted me about the 44 Remington (44-40) cartridges.

44-40, Chasing UMC's Folded Head cases.

 

[BMur]

Patents vs Cartridge ID?

Bryan,

The point I was trying to make is that it’s literally impossible to identify cartridges by patent holder prior to head stamping. So many were approved from 1869-1882. Many inventors are listed during that period.

When we apply an open mind here? How exactly can you verify who’s patent was being used and who manufactured the case in question when the head is “NOT MARKED”?

Look at the 5 patent drawings from 1869-1872. These are my random picks from my cartridge patent book. Can you identify the patent holder? They are extremely similar to me. How do we confirm a Milbank primer exactly?

Each one of these photo’d patents are not Milbanks patent. They are other inventors.

Do you see my point?

Now let’s plug in UMC, Winchester, US Cartridge Co, Peters, American, etc etc. I can’t see how you can positively identify any cartridges Pre-1884 except for marked military cases etc. or obvious singular style primers. Even the Bennett primer has look alike designs.

Some of the patent drawings appear to me as exact duplicates of the Milbank patent drawing photo of 1870 That I posted.

These are all folded head cases as well. So how many folded head cases were manufactured before the solid head? An open mind?
Unknown!!

Murph

 

[Bryan Austin]

Bryan,

The point I was trying to make is that it’s literally impossible to identify cartridges by patent holder prior to head stamping. So many were approved from 1869-1882. Many inventors are listed during that period.

Not for the 44-40 (44WCF) in those very early 1873-1880 years. You have a small handful of patented primers. One 44-40 cartridge I have been looking at may have been manufactured by USCCo using a Farrington primer. When I purchased it, I was told it was a WRACo. cartridge made out of Gelding metal....nope, not WRACo., and more than likely not UMC. USCCo was known for using such metal at the time, as well as the Farrington primer....but I have not looked into it any further.

When we apply an open mind here? How exactly can you verify who’s patent was being used and who manufactured the case in question when the head is “NOT MARKED”?

I said I was teachable, I didn't say how easy! Again, we are talking 44-40 here....I could care less about any other's except for maybe the 45 Colt cartridges of those unheadstamped early years. (see image below).

Look at the 5 patent drawings from 1869-1872. These are my random picks from my cartridge patent book. Can you identify the patent holder? They are extremely similar to me. How do we confirm a Milbank primer exactly?

Each one of these photo’d patents are not Milbanks patent. They are other inventors.

Do you see my point?

Which of those were NOT used with the 44-40 cartridges? Do you see my point?

Primers used in Winchester's 44-40 cartridges
44-40 Cartridge History - Google Sheets
.
.
.
The First Winchester 73's sn1 thru 37
I doubt seriously Oliver Winchester waited until after his primer patent of July 1874', before using them in his Winchester 44 cartridges.
.
.
.

 

[Bryan Austin]

Another item I have been slowly working on are the primer dates between Winchester and UMC, which can be seen here: 44-40 Cartridge History - Google Sheets

If you would like to contribute your primer patent knowledge, it would be greatly appreciated.

 

[BMur]

Work cut out for you

Well Bryan,
You have a lot of work to do. I looked more deeply into my patent research and found the following:

1869:
Over 30 approved patents for centerfire primer/case design improvements by 30 different inventors. All folded head cases.

1870:
13 approved patents for centerfire primer/case design improvements by 13 different inventors. All folded head cases.

1871: Start seeing the same inventors applying for improvements to their existing patents. 24 total patents approved in that year. All folded head cases.

Also: I found I. Milbank actually had 6 approved patents for his primer/cartridge design. The following:

August 1869
May 1871
January 1872
February 1872
April 1872
September 1872

So, from now on if we refer to the Milbank cartridge/Primer we will need to know which patent you are referring to.

Also, focused research on the 44-40 is not possible since all of these patents that I listed. (By the way, this is not a complete listing. Only until 1872) All of these patents "DO NOT" refer to a specific caliber. Therefore, they are relevant to all centerfires.

So, you could actually find any one of these patent designs in early "non head stamped" cases. The problem like I have been trying to get across is "identifying" the cases. Who made them and which of the 84 patents from 1869-1872 are we talking about?

Milbank alone had 6 patent improvements.


Murph

 

[Bryan Austin]

All depends on which patent 44-40 ammunition manufactures decided to use and since I am focused on just two and maybe three, it is pretty easy, actually, to determine which primers were used. It is much harder to find examples than it is to identify them.

Not really giving a rats rear-end what manor changes were made to each patent, especially to a primer that was basically not even used, if ever, in production.

So here ,once again, what I am trying to get you to understand is I am only interested in Winchester and UMC ammunition manufactures ONLY, I could care less of any others.....which is why I replied to this topic in the first place.....on a Smith & Wesson forum.

Winchester used the Milbank primer for a very, extremely short time during 1873. There were only about 16 rifles delivered before then end of 1873. The first being ordered and delivered on Sept 26th. How much ammo was needed for 16 Winchester Model 1873' rifles manufactured and delivered between Sept and Dec 1873? Seriously?

Luckily for me, Oliver Winchester was approved his own primer seven months later, patented July 14th, 1874...(1878 Gardner patent, an employee)..so it is relatively easy to identify unheadstamped WRACo. cases with Winchester's patented primers. But of course, one must dissect the cartridge. Winchester also used 200gr bullets while UMC used 217gr bullets, and USCCo. maybe 210gr bullets, so again it is not that difficult to identify the manufacturer of 44-40 unheadstamped cartridges.

UMC's primer used for the earliest 44-40's would be the Orcutt primer with "Octagonal" disk as early as 1873 or 1874, which was not "Patented" until March 10th, 1874. see attached photo

Interestingly enough, nearly four times the seating depth as the Wesson primer, the Orcutt primers in the Tin in the attached photo....while the tin label only lists the Hobbs/Orcutt October 24th, 1871 patent, the primers have the improved octagonal disks that were covered by the Hobbs March 10, 1874 patent...which were the same primers found in cases used in the UMC 1873/74 cartridges.


All of this has been educational and you have certainly made me dive deep into my brain, however bit shallow the water really is in there, but it is not that difficult to identify the timeframe of a 44-40 cartridge by the primers used in the cases I have an interest in. Also to note that these manufactures also used different weight lead bullets. Again, Winchester-200gr, UMC-217gr and USCCo.-maybe 210gr. These manufactures/patent holders were tuff on their patents and sued in a heartbeat if trespassed. I have a handful of unheadstamped cases that I will never be able to date because they came to me with no primers and no bullets.

As always, the data will be updated as new reliable data dictates.

I can not post all of my information here, so here is a link to the data I have collected so far. I don't think you will be disappointed.
.
.
.
.
.