Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
November 7, 2015
Offline
According to Campbell the mechanical changes were significant as well. That was news to me, I knew they made a few changes to facilitate manufacturing but Campbell made a big deal about them, that’s why I need to read that part again. I agree that changing the angle of the block was significant as I have a bit of experience with the 1874 Sharps action.
Bert H. said
Winchester’s (William Mason) changes made for a better looking rifle in my opinion. The original Browning Single Shots did not have the same pizzazz (see the pictures below for an example).Bert
Is that a replaced lever on that beautiful Browning? If not he surly was a master with sandcasting and a file.
Vince
Southern Oregon
NRA member
Fraternal Order of Eagles
“There is but one answer to be made to the dynamite bomb and that can best be made by the Winchester rifle.”
Teddy Roosevelt
Vince said
Is that a replaced lever on that beautiful Browning? If not he surly was a master with sandcasting and a file.
No, that is the original lever. Keep in mind that at the time that rifle was manufactured (in the early 1880s), the Browning brothers were 100% hand making those rifles. They had only a crude machine shop.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
November 7, 2015
Offline
Methinks somebody needs to write a book about this William Mason guy, or at least a good magazine article. Maybe they already have. I’m a bit “booked up” at the moment but he keeps popping up in interesting places. Reminds me of Black Elk.
Online
TXGunNut said
Methinks somebody needs to write a book about this William Mason guy, or at least a good magazine article…
Maybe it’s already been done. Every year many well-researched pieces on such obscure individuals appear in Gun Digest, Man at Arms, Muzzle Blasts, Single Shot Journal, Double Gun Journal, and similar publications; and then there are the publications of regional historical societies. One of the oldest firearms-history publications, Gun Report, has gone belly-up with no way to retrieve copies of old articles. And contrary to what many believe, most of this info is not “findable” merely by a Google search.
GD once re-published the best from the previous 5 yrs or so in what was called the GD Treasury. I have several of them and they are invaluable; but the present cheapskate owners of GD abandoned doing this years ago.
November 7, 2015
Offline
Hard to say how many folks would be interested in more bio info on Mason but I’ll do a little research on him and Johnson at some point. Thinking the bibliography of Campbell’s book may be a good place to start.
A nice article has already been written about him titled: William Mason — Unknown Genius, Gunsmith, Inventor
http://www.americancowboychronicles.com/2016/11/william-mason-unknown-genius-gunsmith.html
He worked at Remington, then Colt before going to Winchester. Wikiwand has some of the basics here;
http://www.wikiwand.com/en/William_Mason_(Colt)
Best Regards,
William Mason Basic Biography –
Remington
Mason began his career as an apprentice patternmaker, eventually working in the arms industry for Remington Arms. While at Remington, on Nov 21 1865,he received U.S. patent 51,117, for a swing-out cylinder for easy loading and the star ejector mechanism to eject spent cartridge cases, a design used in 1896 by S&W for the .38 Hand Ejector (M&P and S&W Model 10).[2]
Colt
Mason left Remington Arms in 1866 to work for Colt as the Superintendent of the armory. Along with Charles Richards, Mason patented designs to convert percussion revolvers into rear-loading metallic cartridge revolvers. Those converted revolvers are identified as the “Richards-Mason conversion”.[3] After working on these conversions, Mason began work on Colt’s first metallic cartridge revolvers in 1871: the Colt Model 1871-72 “Open Top” revolver was the third such pistol, following the .41 caliber House Pistol and the .22 caliber seven-shot Open Top. The Open Top .44 was a completely new design and the parts would not interchange with the older percussion pistols. Mason moved the rear sight to the rear of the barrel as opposed to the hammer or the breechblock of the earlier efforts. The caliber was .44 Henry and it was submitted to the US Army for testing in 1872. The Army rejected the pistol and asked for a more powerful caliber with a stronger frame. Mason redesigned the frame to incorporate a top strap, similar to the Remington revolvers and placed the rear sight on the rear of the frame. The first prototype was chambered in .44 rimfire, but the first model was in the newest caliber known as the .45 Colt.[4]
The revolver was chosen by the Army in 1872, with the first order shipping in the summer of 1873 for 8000 revolvers.[4] After the success of the Colt Single Action Army and Colt’s conversion of existing percussion revolvers to Richards-Mason conversions, Mason went on to design Colt’s smallest revolver, “The New Line” in 1874. There were 5 variants, each differing in size and caliber, but all using a breechblock designed by Mason.[5]
While Colt had first developed the concept of a “double-action” revolver as early as 1857 and a patent was filed, it was never built by Colt. With increased competition from their British rival, Webley & Scott, Colt had Mason design a double-action revolver for them in 1877, the Colt M1877. Following this, Mason once again teamed up with Richards to produce a larger framed version, the Colt M1878 Frontier in 1878.[6]
His final design for Colt was the Colt M1889, a collaboration with Carl J. Ehbets for a revolver with a swing-out cylinder. Ehbets continued to perfect the idea for 7 years after Mason left Colt for Winchester.[6]
Winchester
Mason left Colt to work for the Winchester Repeating Arms Company in 1882.[7] While he was originally hired to design a revolver to compete with Colt’s revolvers, Mason eventually made working prototypes of many of John Moses Browning‘s designs.[8][9] One of his more notable design improvements was the Winchester Model 1886 rifle.[1] In 1885 he became the Master Mechanic at Winchester and held that position until his death in 1913.[10]
Mason was an inaugural member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers[11] and over the course of his life he patented 125 inventions for firearms, ammunition, firearm manufacturing machinery, steam pumps and power looms.[10] Winchester historian Mary Jo Ignoffo called Mason, “one of the most significant designers of the nineteenth century”.[
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
There are always two sides to every story, and Winchester sure spun a less than truthful tale in that letter! Thomas G. (T.G.) Bennett was simply too arrogant and short sighted to see the writing on the wall, and he insulted John Browning badly enough that Browning parted ways with Winchester. Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of Browning’s history knows that he did not go to Colt, or as Winchester untruthfully proclaimed “we let them go to Colt’s”. Browning first went to Remington, but on the day of his scheduled meeting, Marcellus Hartley (the head of Remington) passed away from a sudden heart attack. John Browning’s relationship with Colt actually began in the early 1890s, and all of Colts early semi-automatic handguns were Browning patents. Browning worked with both Winchester and Colt for many years before his departure, which landed him in Belgium. That Winchester letter is laughable for its out right avoidance of the truth.
As for William Mason, he was a bona fide genius, and an extremely valuable asset to Winchester. His skills in designing firearms was second only to John Browning, and they were thee “dynamic-duo” of the firearms industry for many years.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Yep, Winchester definitely put their spin on that letter. Browning did go to Colt but with a machine gun design after departing from Winchester. I have always heard that Winchester usually bought the Browning designs outright but when the the Browning bros. wanted royalties on their new designs Winchester declined.
This is why I love history, it is all in the eyes of the portrayer, you absolutely have to read between the lines.
i knew posting that letter would get a rise out of you guys 😉
Best Regards,
PS; I have to give credit to Herbert Houze for the letter, it was not from my research.
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
JWA said
Here is an interesting 1903 dated letter from Winchester which describes the separation with John Browning and mentions Mason’s contributions to Winchester designs.
Don’t remember seeing this before, and if I did it was a very long time ago. “Not say anything that would look inimical”! Such a crude job of poormouthing must have been conceived, I’d guess, by some hack in the sales dept. without approval of the upper echelons; whatever Bennett’s feelings of unhappiness with Browning, I think he was far too smart & sophisticated to have approved this hatchet job. (What must Browning have thought of it, if he ever saw it?)
Campbell’s only identified source for his Mason info was a newspaper obit. I had wondered if there might have been a previous bio in Armax, but evidently not, or Campbell would surely have found it.
JWA said
I have always heard that Winchester usually bought the Browning designs outright but when the the Browning bros. wanted royalties on their new designs Winchester declined…
That’s Williamson’s account of the rupture in his history of the company, which seems credible to me, along with most everything else in this book. In John Browning’s bio of his father (or grandfather?), the subject seems to be tip-toed around, surprisingly.
JWA said
Yep, Winchester definitely put their spin on that letter. Browning did go to Colt but with a machine gun design after departing from Winchester. I have always heard that Winchester usually bought the Browning designs outright but when the the Browning bros. wanted royalties on their new designs Winchester declined.This is why I love history, it is all in the eyes of the portrayer, you absolutely have to read between the lines.
i knew posting that letter would get a rise out of you guys 😉
Best Regards,
PS; I have to give credit to Herbert Houze for the letter, it was not from my research.
Jeff,
Browning took his machine gun patent to Colt in the early 1890s, long before his departure from Winchester. Colt first manufactured the Model 1895 Machine Gun using that patent in the year 1895… John Browning did not leave Winchester until 1901. Browning first began designing the Model 1895 machine gun in 1889, only 6-years after he began his 18-year association with Winchester. Browning began his association with Colt in 1892. After the Model 1895 Machine Gun, his next patent that Colt bought was for the Model 1900 semi-auto pistol (again, before he left Winchester).
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Kudos to all of the Gentlemen who have contributed to this topic….. What a fascinating history lesson
Bert H. said
Jeff,
Browning took his machine gun patent to Colt in the early 1890s, long before his departure from Winchester. Colt first manufactured the Model 1895 Machine Gun using that patent in the year 1895… John Browning did not leave Winchester until 1901. Browning first began designing the Model 1895 machine gun in 1889, only 6-years after he began his 18-year association with Winchester. Browning began his association with Colt in 1892. After the Model 1895 Machine Gun, his next patent that Colt bought was for the Model 1900 semi-auto pistol (again, before he left Winchester).
Bert
Yep, your dates are correct, I must have been asleep when I typed the previous response. Thanks for the correction.
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
tsbccut said
Kudos to all of the Gentlemen who have contributed to this topic….. What a fascinating history lesson
I too (just like Jeff) really like the history, and as Jeff astutely stated, it was often written “in the eyes of the portrayer” and reading between the lines is definitely a requisite skill.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
November 7, 2015
Offline
Thanks for the bio, Jeff. I really hadn’t given Mason much thought until starting Campbell’s book but I knew I had seen the name a few other times. His involvement with the revolver conversions and designs was news to me, for some reason I thought that was another Mason.
Getting Browning and Mason together was an amazing pairing; Browning’s creative genius and Mason’s ability to make these creations work . It’s very interesting that Browning probably wasn’t able to produce useful drawings of his creations, Winchester had to reverse-engineer his designs to produce drawings and alter the designs so that they could be produced in a factory setting. I’m not sure what Mason’s exact role in the transformation from prototype to production actually was but apparently it was very significant.
The different viewpoints of historical accounts is why I enjoy reading and discussing history. For some reason differing or conflicting accounts and theories help me understand an event better. I suspect Mason and Johnson got credit for much of the work done in their department as a whole including designs by other “mechanics” but we’ll probably never know.
November 7, 2015
Offline
Wow, just read more about Schuetzens than I ever wanted to know, lol. Ever gotten a hundred or so pages into a book and gotten a nagging suspicion that you should be taking notes? I’m starting to realize that I’d get a lot more out of my growing reference library if I’d come up with a note-taking system that I can use for an index or reference. I’ll need to have a system in place for my next trip through Madis’ book, so much info is in seemingly random chapters that I can seldom find the passage that I’m pretty sure I read…somewhere.
TXGunNut said
I’ll need to have a system in place for my next trip through Madis’ book, so much info is in seemingly random chapters that I can seldom find the passage that I’m pretty sure I read…somewhere.
You’re in luck*–I still have the several pages of Madis notes I made in the ’70s, so that when at a show, I could find the most critical info quicker than flipping pages in the book; and “random” is a good characterization of Madis’ organization! Maybe later eds. were indexed, but not my copy.
*if you can read hieroglyphics.
November 7, 2015
Offline
My note-taking style is a bit odd and my handwriting skills went from poor to terrible in college. I’m thinking an index may be a good approach to Madis’ book. Good idea, Clarence.
1 Guest(s)
