Maverick said

Chuck said

Here are 2 pics of the O F Winchester primers in tins I got from Paul Morlans.  These seem to have a rounded top but I’ve only seen flat top ones before?  Go back to page 2 and look at Bob’s box.  They are flat.  I have 3 dissected Gardner primers that Lou Behling sent me and they look different. More to come I have a bad cold and no energy. 

  

That 1st tin looks like its got to be one of the earliest O.F. Winchester primer tins produced. 

I wonder if in the process of loading the ammunition and seating the primer into the primer pocket. That if it in turn somewhat flattens out the primer.

I know that even today when I hand load ammo that when priming cases with my Lyman primer it slightly changes the look of it when its seated. 

  

Brady, You also bring up some very good points! Both tins seem to have the same Patent date, as both are similar, yet different. I can agree they both are earlier tins, and I’m sure, pretty hard to find.

It’s possible they could get flattened upon installation, at least I can understand that. As you know the material is so soft, sometimes seating it, can have a crush effect on the primer. At least a distortion, to it, as to what you’re saying.

Anthony

Here is a picture of the 3 dissected Gardner primers that Lou Behling sent me.

This file started out as a 1.1 mb file and was compressed to 533 kb when it was added to this post.  So the site is doing a bit of compression.

Anthony said
The 1875 Winchester catalog had 24 cartridges listed in it, with a new and improved primer, patented in July, 1874, (did not indicate the primer, as assumed the Gardner primer), in it. Ray Giles commented in an article in 2008, “I would assume they were making most of these prior to the introduction of the new primer, when the Milbank primer was in use, so I suppose any of them could be found with the Milbank Primer.  

Your assumption would be wrong as the primer was Oliver F. Winchester’s patented primer, as the Gardner primer wasn’t patented until 1878. Of course there is a theory that the Governor hired Gardner and merely put his name as inventor when filing said patent. But where’s the proof? Or how would one prove such a thing? I’m not certain when Gardner started employment with WRACo.

I believe Ray Giles assumption is correct for any center-fire ammunition produced by WRACo prior to November 1873. As Winchester applied for the patent on November 6th, 1873. To me its obvious that the Governor would have been working on the primer prior to applying for its patenting. It would also seem apparent or not much of a leap to suggest that regardless of the “patent approval” process. They would have started production and use of O.F. Winchester’s primer prior to its approval in July 1874. There are plenty of over examples of WRACo using/producing/manufacturing “Patent Pending” items prior to its approval.

The other issue is, don’t know of anyone that has examples for all these 24 cartridges having Milbank primers. But of course lack of evidence does not prove anything or make it so.

Maverick said

Chuck said

Here is a picture of the 3 dissected Gardner primers that Lou Behling sent me.

  

The two on the left look like the 1878 patent. The one of the right is a later one, and I’m having a hard time recalling the year. Is it the 1903?

  

I need to talk with Lou and have him give me more info.  The one in the middle is thicker than the other 2.  All are about the same diameter.

I’m confused.  O. F. Winchester had a Patent but we all know he wasn’t the one who did the development.  Gardner had a Patent but at some point he worked for Winchester.  And I think I have seen two different Gardners?

Maverick said

Anthony said

The 1875 Winchester catalog had 24 cartridges listed in it, with a new and improved primer, patented in July, 1874, (did not indicate the primer, as assumed the Gardner primer), in it. Ray Giles commented in an article in 2008, “I would assume they were making most of these prior to the introduction of the new primer, when the Milbank primer was in use, so I suppose any of them could be found with the Milbank Primer.  

Your assumption would be wrong as the primer was Oliver F. Winchester’s patented primer, as the Gardner primer wasn’t patented until 1878. Of course there is a theory that the Governor hired Gardner and merely put his name as inventor when filing said patent. But where’s the proof? Or how would one prove such a thing? I’m not certain when Gardner started employment with WRACo.

I believe Ray Giles assumption is correct for any center-fire ammunition produced by WRACo prior to November 1873. As Winchester applied for the patent on November 6th, 1873. To me its obvious that the Governor would have been working on the primer prior to applying for its patenting. It would also seem apparent or not much of a leap to suggest that regardless of the “patent approval” process. They would have started production and use of O.F. Winchester’s primer prior to its approval in July 1874. There are plenty of over examples of WRACo using/producing/manufacturing “Patent Pending” items prior to its approval.

The other issue is, don’t know of anyone that has examples for all these 24 cartridges having Milbank primers. But of course lack of evidence does not prove anything or make it so.

  

Brady,

Thank you for bringing that to my attention.  I probably didn’t explain myself enough, The paragraph that I posted above was from a post on the IAA Forum, 1/2008, listed as Historian, which I’m pretty sure is Ray Giles, as it’s signed, Ray. I can also agree with you’re point, on the 1874 patent date, and we can assume in all likely hood, that GARDNER primer’s, we’re used in those cases. I think we can all agree, that very few, cartridges with Milbank primers in them we’re mfg. and used as the problems that occurred, have been previously mentioned. Delaying the Winchester model 1873, and no telling how many Milbank cartridges we’re mfg.

Anthony

Chuck said
I’m confused.  O. F. Winchester had a Patent but we all know he wasn’t the one who did the development.  Gardner had a Patent but at some point he worked for Winchester.  And I think I have seen two different Gardners?

Well now, I’m not saying Oliver wasn’t the money bags and paid for everything, then turned around to take all the credit. But I wouldn’t rule him out for being intelligent or not having any ingenuity in his own right. 

He was a carpenter and became a Master Builder before he started his T-Shirt business. Which he supposedly revolutionized with his own T-Shirt manufacturing patent processes. Was one of the first people to develop the industry in the U.S. and apparently made it a very profitable business. 

So to rule him completely may not be the case. Here is his T-Shirt patent. https://patents.google.com/patent/US5421A/en?oq=us5421

If I recall correctly there was two Gardners, a father and son. Both of which I believe worked for Winchester. I don’t recall the specifics.

Sincerely,

Maverick

Chuck,

Sounds to me that Oliver Winchester, being the business man that he was, was once again smart enough to observe Gardner’s patent, and not only adapt it, and use it, for a said amount, a royalty if you will, but then hired Gardner to work for Winchester, and later his son, also. Unless Gardner had a brother at the time, and employed him also. Some conjecture and speculation on my part reading this. I don’t know if O. W. ever bought the patent rights to Gardner’s patent.

With Winchester’s well know primer patent, July of 1874, in Bryan Austin’s, chasing the .44-40 interesting article, he made the well known point that O.F.W. had four patents before finally deciding on the proven Gardner primer, and preventing any further delay in the model 1873 rifle. Bryan also states that is was rumored that O.W. had six attempts at get to the Gardner patent that he used. When experimenting or developing anything it’s a trial and error process in many regards and this doesn’t surprise me at all. It’s very possible several other, unproven attempts, we’re made during this time.

https://www.reloadingtool.com/primers-in-america

With the link I posted,by Kurt a well known cartridge collector, it goes into yet more detail of the so called “primer wars”, (IMO), that we’re going on during this period of rifle/cartridge/powder development along with the ignition system,the different primer’s, that we’re being tried and used. In the link, a few Milbank primers are shown in different, larger caliber.

Anthony

Chuck said

Anthony said

Chuck, the size of the primer picture shows up well for me. Thanks for posting it.

The 1875 Winchester catalog had 24 cartridges listed in it, with a new and improved primer, patented in July, 1874, (did not indicate the primer, as assumed the Gardner primer), in it. Ray Giles commented in an article in 2008, “I would assume they were making most of these prior to the introduction of the new primer, when the Milbank primer was in use, so I suppose any of them could be found with the Milbank Primer.

.38 short,                         

.38 long,

.38 extra long,

.40-50 grs. (Sharps),

.40-70 grs. (Sharps),

.41 long, .42 (Russian?),

.43 (Spanish),

.44-60 grs. (Sharps),

.44-77grs(Sharps),

.44 S & W American, and Russian,

model 1873 Winchester (.44-40 W.C.F.),

.44 long,

Colt .44,

Colt .45,

.45 Sporting (.45-50Peabody),

Martini Henry (.45),

.50 pistol, carbine (.50-45),

Musket (.50-70), .58 carbine,

.58 (musket),

.58 Snyder

I posted this as the information on the Milbank primer, is somewhat limited as the confusion of looking like a spent cartridge will probably always remain, as this list was verified by more than one very reliable source.

 

Anthony

  

I have seen some Milbank primed cartridges but don’t remember the calibers. None were Winchester. 

  

Chuck, I’ve seen some pictures of some Milbank primers, as I think we can all understand them, by now. I wanted to put up the list I found, in case members are interested, and it also helps out, the curious mind. At least it does mine. I refrained from beating on it further, from posting pictures also.

Anthony

Very interesting Chuck! Pretty sure you might want to change where Isaac Milbank was from, for you’re records, as I’m pretty sure he was from, Greenfield Hill, in the county of Fairfield, and the State of Connecticut. I’m seeing a different patent number, and dates also.

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/d2/dd/6c/1a36be8da1cd44/US123352.pdf

I’m thinking Bryan will want to add that to his site.

Anthony