Winchester Winder Musket - Tell Me More - Page 4 - RimfireCentral.com Forums

Go Back   RimfireCentral.com Forums > >

Notices

Join Team RFC to remove these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #46  
Old 01-07-2008, 06:27 PM
vepr762
NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
May 2004
Location: 
Oregon
Posts: 
7,150
TPC Rating: 
91% (10)


Log in to see fewer ads
Bert,
Are you going to be setting up a display, at the OAC show, next to Vall's? A "dueling" display of SS? I'll probably see you there, but I won't have a table this month.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-07-2008, 07:25 PM
Gobblerforge

Join Date: 
Jun 2005
Location: 
SouthEast Ohio Foothills of Appalachia
Posts: 
521
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Hmmmmm.... Might not be bull poop after all. Huh Bert?
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-07-2008, 08:48 PM
Bert H.
US Navy Veteran NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Mar 2004
Location: 
Kingston, WA
Posts: 
480
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gobblerforge View Post
Hmmmmm.... Might not be bull poop after all. Huh Bert?
Very likely that it is... Herb would have been a relatively young man at the time Winchester designed the .22 Caliber Musket "Winder".
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #49  
Old 01-07-2008, 08:54 PM
Bert H.
US Navy Veteran NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Mar 2004
Location: 
Kingston, WA
Posts: 
480
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by vepr762 View Post
Bert,
Are you going to be setting up a display, at the OAC show, next to Vall's? A "dueling" display of SS? I'll probably see you there, but I won't have a table this month.
Unfortunately I will not be able to attend the OAC Single Shot show this year. I will be occupied (or underway) with the U.S. Navy for the most of the remainder of this month. Vall has suggested (more than once) that I bring a table full of high-walls to the show, and I plan to do just that when the timing is right. My theme will be "Big Bore" high-walls in scarce calibers.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-07-2008, 08:59 PM
vepr762
NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
May 2004
Location: 
Oregon
Posts: 
7,150
TPC Rating: 
91% (10)
The theme for March (Sunday 30th) is "Favorite Maker", May (25th) is "Fancy or Unusual Firearms", November (23rd) is "Historical Weapons", and December (16th) is "Rimfires, Kids Guns, & Airguns", so you have plenty of opportunites.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 01-07-2008, 09:06 PM
Bert H.
US Navy Veteran NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Mar 2004
Location: 
Kingston, WA
Posts: 
480
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by vepr762 View Post
The theme for March (Sunday 30th) is "Favorite Maker", May (25th) is "Fancy or Unusual Firearms", November (23rd) is "Historical Weapons", and December (16th) is "Rimfires, Kids Guns, & Airguns", so you have plenty of opportunites.
I will have to look at my schedule and see which one fits best. I will be at the August show. June is reserved for Cody
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01-08-2008, 04:47 PM
Gobblerforge

Join Date: 
Jun 2005
Location: 
SouthEast Ohio Foothills of Appalachia
Posts: 
521
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Bert. I read all of the information that James had available. Can you say that? It's a wonderful read. Thanks James. As a researcher, I would think you would welcome with open arms all information pertaining to your project. Here is an interview with the man and tons of info and you poo-poo it? As for his age, he joins the army at 16, serves 4 years in the Guard then a couple years later takes a job with Winchester for 25 years. I'd say he existed. I don't know, man. Your methods are suspect.
Gobbler
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01-08-2008, 09:09 PM
Bert H.
US Navy Veteran NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Mar 2004
Location: 
Kingston, WA
Posts: 
480
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gobblerforge View Post
Bert. I read all of the information that James had available. Can you say that? It's a wonderful read. Thanks James. As a researcher, I would think you would welcome with open arms all information pertaining to your project. Here is an interview with the man and tons of info and you poo-poo it? As for his age, he joins the army at 16, serves 4 years in the Guard then a couple years later takes a job with Winchester for 25 years. I'd say he existed. I don't know, man. Your methods are suspect.
Gobbler
Brad,

I take personal offense to your attitude in this, and for someone who has very little knowledge of this subject, you should look before you leap

To answer your question, Yes, I have read the entire excerpt from the as yet unknown document (pages 200 - 207). I found a substantial number of errors in that piece, and it most definitely is not accurate account. Whom ever the author was, that person either took liberal literary freedoms, or (most likely) was not told the actual truths by an aged William H. (Herb) Richard. I will cite a few examples for everyone who has had the opportunity to read the information James so graciously provided...

Page 204, left column, second paragraph from the bottom;

quote "In 1905, Mr. Richard wrote the Winchester Company with an idea for a rifle to take the place of the service rifle, the Springfield .45 caliber, for indoor shooting, and short ranges outdoors. "I felt a new gun was needed to teach recruits." said Mr. Richard. "They made up a gun and sent it to me to look over. I like it except for a few things, which I suggested they change. I still have the gun they sent me." end quote

Now, the first clue that should jump right out at any knowledgeable gun person, is the reference to a ".45 caliber Springfield". By the year 1905, the .30 caliber Models 1892, 1896, 1898, and 1899 Springfield Krag-Jorgenson rifles were still the U.S. Military's primary "Service" rifle (the Springfield Model 1903 was just starting to enter military service). Please note the year that "Mr. Richard" allegedly contacted Winchester.

Now, for the real truth. The following text was published by John Campbell in his first reference book titled "The WINCHESTER SINGLE-SHOT. I, in June of 2006 (during my annual research trip to the Cody Firearms Museum), corroborated (verified) most of the below quoted text in the records contained within the McCracken Research Library. For those of you who have Campbell's book, please refer to pages 149 - 153.

quote "The Musket had been an inglorious "line item" part of the catalog's price list for almost 20 years, but was never illustrated or formally described until October 1905. Even at that time, the catalog was none too generous in its promotion.

Standard and only style made. Round barrel, 28 inches long, chambered for .22 Long Rifle cartridge. Weight about 8 1/2 pounds. List price, Musket $16.00; Sling strap, $1.50 extra. Designed for indoor target shooting and preliminary outdoor practice.

The rifle illustrated was a two-band high-wall Musket with what appears to the Krag style rear sight. Unfortunately, the catalog listing was a little behind the real world case. This rifle was actually introduced in January of 1905. It was offered in 22 Short and Long Rifle chambering and soon became known as the "Winder Musket" due to its association with Lt. Col. Charles B. Winder of the Ohio National Guard. This Single-Shot's popular name "Winder Musket," was never officially used by Winchester in any of its public sales literature. Internal use of the name was scant, but can be found in the W.R.A. Co. Sales Manual of 1938 as well as a few pieces of inter-office memoranda. In the 1938 sales manual, it appears in Chapter One, The Development of the Winchester, and parenthetically under a photograph of a two-band Winder Musket with the Krag-type rear sight. But like the "high-wall" and "low-wall," Winder Musket is a name that stuck, so I'll continue to use it for ease of understanding.

In this case, however, the name adhered for a valid reason. The first tenuous link between Winder and this rifle occurred in April of 1904 when Winchester received an inquiry from Winder regarding the possible creation of a .22 caliber military version of the Model 85. As it turned out, Winchester was way ahead of Winder on this account, according to Winchester Arms Museum correspondence files. W.R.A. had apparently been working on just such a rifle since late 1903.

In conjunction with this, they sent Winder a sample rifle, which had been assembled in January 1904. From Winder's description in a March 1904 letter to T.G. Bennett, the sample rifle had a 28-inch barrel, two barrel bands and 1892 sights. That was fine, but Winder saw ways to make it even better and outlined his ideas in a letter to Bennett. The company was impressed and took Winder on as a consultant in April. His job for the next couple of months was to assist in the development of a refined Musket, one which would closely fit the needs of the marksmanship training programs around the country.

Both Winder and Winchester achieved their goal. The first production example of the finalized Winder Musket, serial number 96709, was shipped to Winder himself on November 21, 1904, according to Winchester records.

Shortly thereafter, an advertisement in the 1904 annual report of the secretary of the NRA stated that the new musket was introduced by C.B. Winder, who at that time held the rank of captain in his post as Inspector of Small Arms Practice of the Ohio National Guard. In January of 1905, a full year after the first Winder Musket was made, Winchester announced the production of a new .22 caliber Single-Shot, "designed specifically for indoor target practice by members of the militia organizations, as well as schools and colleges." More information was revealed in the Circular No. 1, issued in 1905 by the office of the Adjutant General of the Ohio National Guard. Its author was none other than Capt. Charles B. Winder, Inspector of Small Arms Practice.

I believe that every one concerned is familiar with various and continuous trouble we had trying to obtain results with regulation gallery practice cartridges in the Krag, when firing on armory ranges last winter. And I sincerely hope that the buckshot load is a thing of the past, and that I may never again be called upon to instruct a company that is using it.

It was so inaccurate that satisfactory practice was impossible, and the interest of the men could not be maintained. It is useless to expect men to be painstakingly in holding and sighting - which they must be to improve - when the ammunition will not shoot where they hold.

...After correspondence covering several months, I succeeded in interesting the Winchester people and they made up a .22 caliber musket for me.

Being aware that the Army and organized militia would, in the near future, discard the Krag for the New Springfield, I insisted that this new gun correspond as closely as possible in length, weight and balance, to the latter arm, and also have swivels for sling, and barrel tapped to take Krag rear sights. The price to the Ohio National Guard is very reasonable, and the ammunition is very cheap.


The document concluded with a recommendation from Ohio Adjutant General A.B. Critchfield that...
...each company procure a sufficient number of the Winder model Winchester musket for the instruction of the command in target practice.

Although his was a significant contribution, Winder did not generate the entire concept for this musket alone. He worked with George W. Chesley, Winchester's crack target shooter, and Ed Uhl and Henry Brewer, two of the company's top ballistics experts. It is said that Winder's talents were applied to the stock, sights and, later, action alterations directed towards easier loading. This loading solution may have eventually led to the "low-wall" Winder Musket, which is dealt with later in this section. From all indications, Winder's involvement was certainly important and evident in the evolution of this arm."
end quote

For a second example of a literary error in the document provided by James, refer to page 206, right-hand column, top paragraph, last sentence...

quote "He died in Palm Beach, Florida on March 4, 1921, only forty-six years old." end quote

The actual truth, is that Charles Winder contracted tuberculosis in 1918, and he died on March 4th, 1921 in the Army hospital at Fort Bayard, New Mexico!

OK, at this point, I am quite weary of typing, so I will cease and desist. However, I can point out several more flagrant errors in the text of the information James provided if needed.

To you Brad, I hope this opens your eyes up a little, and that you have learned something about myself... I never make any definitive statement(s) about information concerning the Model 1885 without already knowing the correct answer. I have not wasted the past nearly six years of my life in my efforts to research and write a new, and accurate, reference book on the Model 1885. Does that mean I know everything about them... definitely not (yet), but I do know way more than most.

Bert.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01-08-2008, 09:36 PM
GevarmGunNut's Avatar
GevarmGunNut
NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Sep 2005
Location: 
World's Most Famous Beach - Daytona
Posts: 
1,666
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
That's interesting additional info on the Winder, Bert H. Many thanks! Have you run into my query regarding the "thinside" and "thickside" actions?

My question was prompted by the fact that a popular gun guide says the thinside - which my gun has - was more rare on the low wall. It was more common on the high wall. My question was: does the fact that this is a thinwall add anything to the value?

After seeing BOTH receivers, I'm glad mine has the thinwall. It looks classier, in my opinion anyway.

Looking forward to any further info you wish to share about this very nice rifle

Best regards, ~ ~ ~ GGN
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01-08-2008, 10:23 PM
azzhandler

Join Date: 
Oct 2005
Posts: 
609
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
I wasnt trying to start a fight when I brought Herb into the picture, I was just trying to furnish information about the men who my great grandfather spent considerable time with. Im going to check with some of my older relatives and see if there is any more pictures of these men available,
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01-09-2008, 12:55 AM
Bert H.
US Navy Veteran NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Mar 2004
Location: 
Kingston, WA
Posts: 
480
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GevarmGunNut View Post
That's interesting additional info on the Winder, Bert H. Many thanks! Have you run into my query regarding the "thinside" and "thickside" actions?

My question was prompted by the fact that a popular gun guide says the thinside - which my gun has - was more rare on the low wall. It was more common on the high wall. My question was: does the fact that this is a thinwall add anything to the value?

After seeing BOTH receivers, I'm glad mine has the thinwall. It looks classier, in my opinion anyway.

Looking forward to any further info you wish to share about this very nice rifle

Best regards, ~ ~ ~ GGN
Hello GGN,

That "popular" gun guide is in error, and in several ways. First, your Model 87 low-wall is not a "thin-side". It is more accurately a "panel-side", and it has a thicker (beefier) frame than the slightly more common "flat-side" low-wall. To answer your question, No, it does not add to the value. The only time any value is added for the frame type, is for a thick-side high-wall.

To back up just a bit, it is important to understand that Winchester manufactured three distinctly different types of low-wall frames. Below is an excerpt taken from the rough draft of my manuscript;

"Low-wall frame variations;

The low-wall frame was made in three distinctly different variations, with the Second Variation being the more common type. The following paragraphs provide a brief physical description of the three low-wall frame variations, with the approximate serial number and production timeframe for each;

First Variation:

It features a frame with milled sides (paneled) just like the vast majority of the high-walls, and it has a full height breech block that is not scalloped (contour milled) to match the upper frame. It will always be found with a flat-spring action. Essentially, it is a high-wall with the rear portion of the frame (behind the breech block) milled down. The frame ring is threaded for the standard .825 small shank barrel. It could be threaded for a large shank (.935) barrel if special ordered with a No. 3 barrel, but it is very rarely encountered. The First variation low-walls were made with a No. 1 barrel as standard, with a No. 2 barrel available as a special order option. The top of the frame ring is most often found with a milled longitudinal groove that allowed for a better sight picture when a No. 1 barrel was used. When a No. 2 barrel was special ordered, the longitudinal groove was omitted. The serial number range for the First Type low-wall is from circa 2250 to circa 17,500 (early 1886 to late 1887). Because it is essentially a milled down high-wall frame, the stocks, and most internal action parts are interchangeable. The only notable difference is the upper and lower tang thickness, which are slightly thinner than a high-wall. A high-wall lower tang will not fit without relieving the tang channels in the buttstock, but a First variation low-wall lower tang will slide right in a high-wall frame.

Second Variation:

It features a flat-sided frame with a scalloped (contoured milled) breech block to match the upper frame. In order to make the Second variation low-wall frame trimmer, and to lighten the overall weight, Winchester eliminated the flared sections of the frame. This made the front and rear of the frame considerably thinner than the First Variation. The frame ring was threaded for the .825 small shank barrel only, and the No. 1 barrel was standard. As with the First Variation, the frame ring is milled with a longitudinal groove when a No. 1 barrel is present, and the groove was omitted when a No. 2 barrel was special ordered. The flat-spring action was used exclusively until March of 1908, then used intermittently until being completely phased out by the coil-spring action in early 1909. Shortly after the coil-spring was introduced in early 1908, Takedown frames were offered. The serial number range for the Second Variation is from circa 16,500 to circa 125,000 (mid 1887 to January 1918). The lower tang is not interchangeable with the high-wall, or with the First and Third Variation low-wall frames. Most other internal parts will not interchange properly (at least not without considerable alteration).

Third Variation:

Found on the coil-spring action Model 87 Winder Muskets only. It has the same exact style milled sides as the First Variation low-wall frame, but with a scalloped (contour milled) breech block. The most unique feature of this variation is that they were all threaded for the large shank (.935) barrel. The top of the frame ring was never made with the milled longitudinal groove. This third and final low-wall variation was simply a high-wall frame that was milled down, and other than the breech block, it is identical to the Second Model high-wall Winder Musket. All parts including the lower tang are interchangeable with a coil-spring action high-wall. The serial number range is from circa 119,100 to 139735 (end of production). It was never available as a Takedown.
"

Below are pictures of each low-wall variation. The top frame is a Third variation (Model 87 Winder Musket), the center frame is a First variation, and the bottom frame is a Second variation.



This is a First variation low-wall...


This is a Second variation low-wall...


This is a Third variation (Model 87)...


Just for giggles, here is a clear close-up of what the martial marking should look like on an original finish Model 87...


OK, I am done for the night

Bert
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 01-09-2008, 05:52 AM
Gobblerforge

Join Date: 
Jun 2005
Location: 
SouthEast Ohio Foothills of Appalachia
Posts: 
521
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Bert. I'm glad you were offended. That tells me that my words have meaning to you. Yours have always had value to me. Here's is my point to all of this. My sarcasm was to try to point out that you public address to James could have been done more courteously.
Look brother. We all know about the book your writing. Hell I want a first edition signed. But we here, as mere mortals, may just want to have friendly conversation without authorities. Don't beat us with it.
I thought the articles were enjoyable to read. I too found many points that were inaccurate but I don't discount the whole article. I would personally like to have a look at the rifle that he states he still has. To me this indicates a prototype. Do you happen to know if it exists some where else? Unless we witness it ourselves, every piece of information we have is second hand. But boy, I'd like to have some photos of that rifle.
Gobbler
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 01-09-2008, 06:33 AM
ob1quixote

Join Date: 
Jan 2008
Posts: 
4
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Hey guys, I'm a newbie, and a pretty gun-dumb one at that. Got no dog in this race.

A humble suggestion for the combatants; say what you want to in a concise manner, instead of angling for a response, and, avoid sounding like a know-it-all even if you in fact are. Sometimes the dummies have a valid point that others, maybe even yourself, have missed.

Ya get more flies with honey instead of vinegar.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 01-09-2008, 06:33 AM
GevarmGunNut's Avatar
GevarmGunNut
NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Sep 2005
Location: 
World's Most Famous Beach - Daytona
Posts: 
1,666
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Photos Alway Welcome

Thank you for the photos, Bert H. That second pic down shows the same receiver type as mine. And, if I understand you correctly, this should be referred to as a "panel-side?"

Also, looking at your bottom photo of the ordnance stampings I noted two interesting things: the U is a larger font stamp than the S, which is the same as mine; and, your flaming bomb appears to be double-struck!

Double-stamping on guns of proofs and so forth are not that unusual when they were applied AFTER leaving the manufacturer, but I find them interesting. One of the most prized pieces in my collection is an old Hartford Arms single-shot .22rf on which the gun left the factory with its entire company name, address, patent dates, etc., that entire info panel is double-stamp. Have you ever seen a Winchester with ANY factory stamps double-struck?

How this old Hartford got out and into circulation may be explained due to the financially tight times (late '20s) when it was made, and the very small size of the company producing it. Unlike the HUGE Winchester organization, Hartford could ill afford to reject an expensive frame which was probably stamped AFTER all other production work on it had been completed. I just IMAGINE - no proof of this - that they may have even offered this particular gun at a discount due to this unmistakable flaw.

Thanks again for the pics. Best regards, ~ ~ ~ GGN
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 01-09-2008, 07:28 AM
Alaninga's Avatar
Alaninga

Join Date: 
Dec 2003
Location: 
Georgia
Posts: 
1,734
TPC Rating: 
100% (2)
22 Short??

I heard these rifles all had Long Rifle chambers, even the ones marked "22 SHORT". The SHORT versions have the slow twist, but still a Long Rifle chamber.
True or False? I'm guessing some just had LR reamers run in by gun hacks later on.
Thanks.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:31 AM.

Privacy Policy

DMCA Notice

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2000-2018 RimfireCentral.com
x