Benet ctges


#1

From left to right
First row :

  1. 45 -70
  2. 45-70 shot
  3. 50-70
  4. 50 Carbine
  5. 58 Carbine

Second row:

  1. 50 Remington Army
  2. 50 Remington Army
  3. 11.45 x 26.6 44 Colt
  4. 11.45 x 28.2 45 S&W Schofield
  5. 11.45 x 32.745 Colt


#2

Some typing errors, excuse me
in fact it is :

Second row:

  1. 50 Remington Army
  2. 50 Remington Army
  3. 44 Colt
  4. 45 S&W Schofield
  5. 45 Colt

#3

Not many people intersted by old US ctges I can see.
JP


#4

JP - I think your caption on the first page for Row 2 was already correct, and your “correction” is wrong, since you now have them NOT in the order of the picture!

Regarding interest in the older cartridges, I am not sure you can make the statement regarding a lack of interest. You have posted two nice pictures of Benet Cartridges, originally properly captioned. You have asked no question regarding these cartridges. What more is there to say about them on this particular thread?

John Moss


#5

[quote=“JohnMoss”]JP - I think your caption on the first page for Row 2 was already correct, and your “correction” is wrong, since you now have them NOT in the order of the picture!

Regarding interest in the older cartridges, I am not sure you can make the statement regarding a lack of interest. You have posted two nice pictures of Benet Cartridges, originally properly captioned. You have asked no question regarding these cartridges. What more is there to say about them on this particular thread?

John Moss[/quote]

Hi John !!

Lol ! they are not in the right order you are right !!!

What more to say ??? !!!
For exemple I was thinking somebody could also put pictures of other Benet ctges !! Or give some explanations.

It didn’t happened, so I can make the statement that :

  • either the ones I showed are the all existing common ones (the other ones are so rare nobody reading this forum has them)
  • or it is interesting only a few people to dicuss of Benet ctges as topic,
  • or people are too busy (or lazy) to spend time (as I do) to show the ctges of their collection.

Some people could say I am showing ctges because I want to know the value to keep the best one and sell the others.
It is true.

But it is not always the case and specially not for Benet or RF ctges because I keep them. (I have even posted two topics where I was asking for some ctges to buy).

And I put many SFM drawings, spending a lot of time to scan them.
(You know how much time it takes, (you scanned me some catalogues),and furthermore I have no scanner at home, I must go to a friend of mine to use his scan).

I put these scans (they are not in my field, so it is just time consumming for me and of no direct interest) because I like to share the knowledge and to show here things the people do not see very often.

I think when somebody is on a forum, it is not to act like a leech (catching all the info you do not have and keeping for yourself all the one you have), but to bring a small contribution.
A lot of people like yourself do it , spending a lot of time.
But many people who have a lot of info (documentaion, ctges aso) prefer to keep it for themselves.

It is not my case.
I am learning many intersting things on this forum (even if most of the topics are not in my field), I am very pleased of that, and I try therefore to offer as much info I would hope to find in the fields I am collecting.
(In my last private mail one week ago, I even offered to put drawings of pistol ctges, isn’t it true ??)

When I was talking big rounds, in fact I didnt need to open topics because in nfact my friend Jim had already told me what it was. It was only to show to people calibers not listed on the British site. Just to give some info.

Everybody is bringing his contribution with a different way.
You like to give info to the people answering theit questions.
Others like to show rounds, like CSAEOD for example.
(People can say he is preparing his next sale when he shows his staff.
Perhaps, but the fact is : if you take out all his posts (not ANSWERS) you do not see a lot of ctges.)

In conclusion, when I put some rounds in a topic, it is also more or less to open a discussion, like many other people do, I think.

It happened many times, but not in the case of RF or Benet (or shotshells, but that I knew it already! lol).

JP


#6

JP

I am one who enjoys and appreciates your photos. As John said, there were no questions asked so we weren’t sure if you expected a reply.

I believe your bottom row of cartridges, left to right, are:

  1. 44 Colt
  2. 45 S&W
  3. 45 Colt
  4. 50 Army
  5. 50 Army

The cartridge on the top row, left, could be either a 45-70-405 or a 45-55-405. It is a post- 1875 cartridge as evidenced by the wide primer crimp.

The 50-70 Govt cartridge is one of the early ones (pre-1871) and can be identified by the deep (wide) Benet cup. Hold a magnet to the base to see if it is the very earliest (iron), or later (copper).

Ray


#7

I know that many of us like to post pictures of items just for the opportunity to share them with someone else who has an appreciation for them. I have learned to expect only a blank stare from the wife and kids when I mention the latest treasure I’ve added to the collection. It would be great to be able to have fellow collectors come to visit so as to talk cartridges and show off acquisitions, but because we cartridge collectors tend to be scattered far and wide all over the world, that is often not possible.

I appreciate the cartridges and drawings that JP has posted pictures of, some perhaps more than others, even if I don’t always have something to add.


#8

[quote=“Ray Meketa”]JP

The 50-70 Govt cartridge is one of the early ones (pre-1871) and can be identified by the deep (wide) primer cup. Hold a magnet to the base to see if it is the very earliest (iron), or later (copper).

Ray[/quote]
thanks Ray !!:

I have in fact the magnetic one and the other.
I didn’t show both because they look similar on the picture.

I forgot to put the I inch gatling and the 50 Army and Navy.

Still looking for other Benet calibers or loadings (not the blanks)
JP


#9

Jean-Pierre,

I enjoy all you post, Keep up the good work. I’m sure it’s appreciated by many new collectors and those in specialty fields who enjoy looking at different items but don’t have or don’t think they have the broad knowledge to comment on them.

I don’t know about over in France but here Rimfire collectors and Shot Shell collectors are looked on by some as a strange breed and maybe they’re right! Both are broad fields with some many variation It can be intimidating,
but it’s that challenge that makes it fun.

Paul


#10

I have to agree that the shotshell collectors are indeed a strange breed.


#11

I promised myself to stay away from this thread, but, having failed, I should probably point out that the fourth cartridge from the left in the top row is not the .50 carbine but rather the .50-45-385 cadet round. The nomenclature of this round is a problem because it was made in externally-primed versions with a headstamp indicating carbine loading and was used in a Remington carbine but its correct designation, per Berk Lewis, is .50 cadet. The true carbine loading was the .50-55-430, which combined the full length case with a bullet resembling the 405 grain .45 carbine and rifle type. JG


#12

Good and thank you.
I like when a topic is like that and when I learn something.
My only documentaion about US RF is a small book in English and I even do not the name because I only have Xeros copies with the first pages missing !
I am looking for the true Carbine if somebody has one !
Thanks again to all
JP


#13

JP–If you want to know the name and author of your mystery book. post a sample page. I’m sure someone will recognize it.