Original bullet for the .45-75

[Buck Stinson]

Dusty,
The sharp screw is called the Berdan Chisel.  It was used for removing the spent Berdan primers from the early cartridge cases.  I use original Winchester tools and molds when reloading for all of my original 1876 Winchesters.  I have many original sets in all four calibers.  Hope this will help.

Buck

[dusty texian]

Thanks Buck,I use these tools for reloading also . Started with modern reloading equip. for these cal. Then ran across a spoon -handle tool for my 45-75 along with the original mould ,decided to try the tool for fun and found it to be easy and fun to load with . Simple but does just what it was made for still today . I have an original de-capper pin for my 40-60 wcf. But the 45-75wcf spoonhandle did not come with one I have a lathe and am making a decapping pin for the 45-75 .Thanks again Dusty .

[Buck Stinson]

Maverick23,
Well my theory regarding the switched photos, may not wash, at least in part.  I emailed Tom Quigley late yesterday and asked him about the two molds pictured in his book.  I explained my question and he told me that the the mold pictured on page 53 is from his collection.  It is not marked Marlin, but that it is in fact a Ballard single shot bullet caliber .40-285.  This small bullet would account for the shorter nose on the cavity.  The mold pictured on page 34 was part of Bob Chamberlains collection, but Tom had never seen the mold in person and was taking the photo and description at face value.  He also said that he noticed too, that the cavity nose seemed excessively long for the .45-75 bullet and expressed some concern that it may not be the correct photo for the description.  Having said this, many in the Reloading Tool Collectors Association have looked at my .45-75WCF mold and all agree that it is definately a product sold by Winchester.  I also looked through some of my research material and found an old article in The Gun Report dated April 2006, which shows two molds belonging to a Sharps collector friend of mine in Colorado.  Two of the molds in the article are identical in every way to my mold and the two pictured in Quigley's book.  Although they do not have any markings other than caliber, they are concidered to be of Sharps manufacture and both are in Sharps calibers.  My mold was only offered by Winchester for a little over a year.  It is so rare, that most collectors have never seen one in .45-75WCF.  

[dusty texian]

These bullets were poured yesterday from my original 45-75 mould .They came out 354grn. @.460 pure lead ,ready for hunting season.Dusty.

[Maverick23]

Maverick23,
As stated in my earlier post dated Dec. 11th, most Winchester tool collectors (myself included) believe these earliest of Winchester molds were possibly made by the Sharps Rifle Company.  It is a fact that Winchester did not make any early molds and tools in house, but rather had them manufactured by an outside source.  

Sorry Its been a while since Ive had time to come back to the forum, else would of responded sooner. 

I'm sorry Buck but I totally disagree with you on this and perhaps the rest of the collecting community as well. I have not seen the later mentioned article of which you speak of on Sharp's Molds. But in reference to what is in Chamberlain's and Quigley's book on page 74 at the top is pictured a Sharp's Mold. If you compare this with the first type Winchester Mold (Which is not pictured in the book) there are noticable differences between them. The screw that holds the sprue cutter in place is different in shape, size and type. The sprue cutter itself is of somewhat different shape. The way the scissor type handle is formed is different from the 1st Type Winchester Mold. The scissor handle on the Winchester is much thicker than the Sharps. The appereance of the metal of the handle is different. The Sharp mold is smooth where Winchester mold is rough. Also all of the Winchester molds Ive seen have a slight curvature to the handle where the Sharp Mold appears very  straight in line.

1st Type Winchester Mold

That said the second Type Mold which you have pictured I find very intriuqing and do believe it too possibly be Winchester (most assurdly). But yet again I have thoughts to it having been originally made by Winchester as well and not by Sharps. The type of Font used on your mold looks comparedly identical to a 1880 spoon handle Tool of the same caliber that I have seen. This Tool was made pre-patent and does not have the 1880 patent line normally seen on these Tools. Compare the Font they look exactly the same. I know for a fact Sharps did not make the 1880 Tool for Winchester.



I believe the tool on page 34 may actually be a Sharps mold as you have stated. If you compare it the mold on page 74, it has the same type of screw holding the sprue cutter on and the sprue cutter appears to be of the same shape and size. 

Another thing I find odd is that why would Winchester sell a different company's Mold in a Boxed set with there own Tool and claim "Winchester Tools for Reloading" in there catalogs and period advertising. I have seen pictures of Both the 1874 Boxed Set & 1875 Tool Boxed set in such a manner. So this and other reasons is why I believe that although the Two companies Molds are very similiar in appreance are actually manufactured separately and independant from one another. Whats that old saying about flattery?

Page from Canadian Arms Collecting Journal
Image from Reloading Tool Collectors Assocation

If you have Tom's email I would appreciate it if you could pass it along to me. I have several other questions about various other Tools&Molds in his and Chamberlain's book. I find the mold they have pictured on page 35 very interesting as well.

Sincerely,
Maverick23

P.S. That is a very nice mold you have in your collection and truely a one off piece of history.

[Buck Stinson]

I'll begin by saying that we are all entitled to our opinions and you may be right on a couple of points.  I tend to lean toward the theory that we collectors have come up with through the collecting and study of the companies and equipment they offered.   Understanding how gun companies marketed their goods in those early years, is very helpful in knowing what accessories they actually manufactured in house or contracted out.  Winchester was not tooled up for, nor were they in the business of making reloading tools and molds at the time the 1873 or 1876 Winchester's were introduced.  It is probable that they did not manufacture such items in house and would not sell such items under their own name until they knew for sure they had a market for them.  It was also a fact that the Sharps Rifle Company was making reloading kits and molds and had the equipment to do so.  The Bridgeport Gun and Impliment Co., was also a major manufacturer of reloading equipment for various gun manufacturers of the period.  Even today, all manufacturers know that it is cheaper and easier to have other companies make many of the small parts and accessories that go into the production of the overall product.  As an example, most of the large gun companies did not make their own rifle sights in house.  These pieces were manufactured to the company specs, by other contractors who had the equipment to specialize in these parts.  Only in rare cases, did Winchester make their own sights in house and this is most likely true of their early tools and molds.  When it was realized that these tools would be profitable they began to market them under the Winchester trade name.  It's not at all surprising that an early mold offered in a Winchester caliber, would have a slightly different shape than those offered in the Sharps calibers, especially if they were made by the same company.  Winchester didn't want anyone to think that the Sharps Rifle Co., made anything in a Winchester specific caliber, so it is most likely that they had their own style spru cutters, screws and handle shape, which would identify it as a Winchester offered product and not Sharps.   Until more documentation comes to light,  we may never know for sure what is correct and what isn't.   The men who made these items are long gone.    We study the artifacts they made and combine that with an understanding of the way gun companies manufactured and marketed their products.   If you don't already have one, you should try to find a copy of a booklet written by Lew Yearout in 1982 titled simply "WINCHESTER RELOADING TOOLS".  Lew was the worlds foremost authority on Winchester arms and asscssories.  He was one hard man, but I've never met anyone in my entire life that knew more about all aspects of the Winchester company than he did.  I first saw his collection in the mid 60's and at that time he had over 1500 early antique Winchesters, hundreds of boxes of ammunition and over 2000 Winchester tools and molds.  This booklet is a must read for anyone who is interested in the variations and calibers of Winchester reloading implements  I have always concidered myself a Winchester collector.  In the past 50 years, I've been fortunate enough to own many fine early rifles and carbines, many of which I still have.  I became interested in boxed Winchester and UMC ammunition after high school and since then have added several hundred pieces to the collection.  Because I thought I had to have the reloading equipment to go with the guns and ammunition, I now have around 300 individual Winchester tools and molds and several boxed sets.   I am still very involved in the collecting and study of Winchesters and accessories, but I learn something new everyday, so I'm no expert.  If I still have the email Tom sent, I would be glad to send it along, but not without asking him first.

[Maverick23]

Buck,

You make good points as well and I respect your opinion. I have had and have read over and over Yearout's pamphlet. It is a great informative source of material. Yearout leaves to subject of the early molds to be open ended and unable to come to a proper conclusion untill more evidence comes to light. No were does Yearout ever mention anything about the Tools being made by someone else. Only the Molds are discussed in this fashion. WRACO was very prolethic and concerned about there Patents and Patent Rights. They were already having issues of copies of the Henry and 66s being produced and there infringement upon them. They obviously owned all the patents on the Tools they produced and patents on tools/reloading implements they didnt produce. This is one of the reasons they became so famously associated with the Browning Bros, over patent infringement of reloading tools. If you look at how prolethic and wide spread Winchester's Ammunition Line became and there willingness to make very specific special order rifles for there costumers. I cant help but concluding that they were more than capacible to make these molds.

If you look at Sharp's earlier Molds, the type with the lip sprue cutter on the end of the mold and then the later molds that cast grooved bullets. They are nothing like the Winchester Molds produced, only a few Sharps molds are similiar in appearence. Granted little is known about these early molds.  The more I research and look at these early Molds the more I'm convinced they are in there on right made by Winchester. What was the name of the Article in that 2006 Gun Report? Would love too further expand my knowledge.  

Winchester did make there own sights but offered and were more than willing to put another companies sights on there guns. Also you have too look at the technology of the associated parts and asscessiors we are talking about. Various sight manufactors had been around making sights for all types of firearms well before the Henry was invented. Central Fire ammunition had only been invented a short time before and didnt come to the fore front untill after the civil war. Especially when concerned with there use in the U.S. until the 1870s.

I will have more thoughts further and will love to continue this discussion. Please do get back with me on that Article, I very much intend on reading it.  Afriad I have some Honey-Dos I must attend too, else I would continue ranting further.

Sincerely,
Maverick23

P.S. Food for thought, Ive seen lots of information of Patents on Reloading Tools of the time period. But havent ever seen much in the way of Patents on Bullet Molds. Do you know of any concerning Bullet Molds?

[Buck Stinson]

I've been trying to get ahold of Tom Quigley, but in a conversation with a mutual friend the other day, he told me that he thoiught Tom and his wife had taken a vacation.  Not sure when he will be home.  I'll keep trying.  The April 2006 article is in the "Accoutrement Corner" by Dick Salzer.  It appears on page 46.  Hope this will help.

[Buck Stinson]

Maverick,
did you get in touch with Tim Quigley?

[Maverick23]

Buck,

Yes I did get in touch with him. I had actually mailed him a letter a while back and I believe either through that letter or you emailing him, he has since contacted me. He mentioned that between him and Mr. Chamberlain that he would be the one more geared toward correspondence through email. Evidently Mr. Chamberlain's word processing skills are limited to an old Remington typewriter or something to that effect. Mr. Quigley I have conversed some on tools but pending me having more time I haven't reached much in the way of debate with him. Afraid I'm too occupied with hunting season. The bucks here are in full rut and all that North East weather has the ducks flying down in droves.

In the letter I sent him I mentioned my membership in WACA(Winchester Arms Collectors Assoc) and since then Mr. Quigley has joined the WACA forum. One topic of discussion that I hadn't thought much on that he touched on that forum. Was were Winchester got there raw materials or castings from. Other members discussed there source being "Malleable Iron Fitting Co, Branford Ct." Which I find very interesting. What are your thoughts?

Oh and if your not a member of WACA already I highly recommend becoming one. Here is the link to the discussion on the WACA forum. http://www.winchestercollector.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5435

Sincerely,
Maverick23
(Brady Henderson)

[Buck Stinson]

Maverick,
I guess I failed in my attempt to explain my thoughts on Winchester and outside contractors.  The letter you're referring to, is from Winchester to the "MALLEABLE IRON FITTINGS CO.",  dated April 4, 1878.  I first saw the original letter when visiting Jim Gordon at his ranch in Grant, Colorado after the Denver show in May of 1997.  This letter was part of his vast collection of Winchesters, particularly the 1873 models.  The letter went to auction along with the rest of his collection in May of 1998 and sold for $150.00.  Because of the fine graphic hand writing, it is in some places hard to read, but it states that Winchester was returning 700 tops and 20 to 30 bottoms "which we have thrown into the scrap.  What will you allow us per pound for them."  It goes on to say, "Please replace the condemned bottoms and tops sent today, as early as possible.  356 bottom parts, 15 top parts."  We don't know for sure, but from the date on the letter head, it was probably the model 1875 tool.  We can conclued that Winchester did not make these castings in house, but they probably did the machining and painted finish.   Hope you find this interesting.   I've been a WACA member for a number of years.

[Bryan Austin]

Based on these bullets pulled from other b.p. cartridges..............

I am thinking that there would have been a separate tool that would have rolled the lube grooves into a smooth bullet from your mold like the ones were produced in the pic.

Food for thought anyway.

w44wcf

Maverick,
John suspected the same thing we discussed on another forum. Don't mean to re-birth another old topic but there is some great info in there. Not sure how I missed this one.

For those that may not know, in Winchester's 1875 catalog they seem to mention a swage tool that could be ordered.

Winchester writes..."Where it is desired to have a more perfect cartridge than can be made with a simple cast bullet, the best course is, if practicable, to purchase the machine swaged bullets, having grooves to receive the lubricating compound, from the manufactures; but, where this can not be done, a very perfect bullet can be made in hand swages, furnished to order. For ordinary use, however, it is found that the cast bullet will answer."

[kwilliams1876]

Wind died down enough yesterday here in Montana that I got a chance to shoot my 2nd mod '76. picked up an original Win. mold awhile back like the one Dusty shows, it casts a bevel base slug and carries quite a bit of lube. Off the bench at 100yds it printed about a 4 in. group. I think the ginourmous "v" rear sight is the limiting factor here. The results where definitely better than the Lyman 457122.   The 30:1 alloy showed no leading, 70 gr 1 1/2f and .030 card wad, std primer.
kw