HISTORY of Spencer Reproductions and related information:
Information about MARKETS and SALES histories.
I have NOT been told the “target market” for HOWELL’s carbine, but he told me the prototype was requested BY the Piper - Menn group. Dr. Jeffrey Menn, MD of both the Piper Group and the “successor” Fletcher-Bidwell, LLC enterprise told me that the Piper Group approached Ken and asked HIM to make a prototype Spencer because Dr. Piper simply admired Spencer’s and no one was making reproductions. So, Ken apparently did not make HIS specifically for HIMSELF; he made it FOR Dr. Piper, DVM, Dr. Menn, MD and that group of “investors”, as Dr. Menn characterized the members.
I cannot determine the DATES for the beginnings of either the PIPER Group via Howell or Romano for THEIR separately conceived reproductions. We know that both appeared in “finished” form in 1996, but how far BEFORE that the work was started is lost in memories. Given the necessary lead time; late 1994 into early 1995.
Ken Howell was involved with cowboy action shooting and guns for that sport. His website indicates he made guns for the actor, Tom Selleck. He shared the Piper Group was ALSO into cowboy action shooting and HORSES, so my guess is the primary market was CAS, not N-SSA skirmishing/re-enacting. This may be WHY Ken’s had the Lane extractor and perhaps 1865 receiver dimensions.
Some ORIGINAL 1865’s and LATER Spencer RECEIVERS WERE “narrower, lighter and rounded on top” than the 1860 Model. “Herbert” posted about this in a CAS-SSS Thread:
“New Canadian Spencer Shooter, Reply #4, 25 Feb 2012.
The Fletcher-Bidwell, with its post C-War era fore-end and clearly oversized front sight base, was not developed for skirmishers. NO F-B’s have been presented to the N-SSA SAC for Production Approval or used in N-SSA skirmishes. The owner of F-B #28 told me that even though his was brought to the N-SSA for Individual Approval, it was never used for skirmishing. NO SAC CARD was presented when that Fletcher-Bidwell was returned to the owner, and Howell’s approval would not apply TO it because of differences.
Romano was NOT a member of the N-SSA when he FIRST built his. He told me that he simply built HIS Spencer because no one else had done one and he liked challenges. He had already scratch-built Sharps rifles that are very accurate copies. One Romano “Sharps” was sold in 2018 on GunBroker and then returned to him for lock work.
Larry told me that he did think there would be high demand for his Spencer, but over the years, orders and deposits amounted to THREE-TIMES as many as the estimated 75 – 80 that were made. Some orders with deposits were cancelled by the inquirer or balances left unpaid during the 2008 Recession. Toward the end of production in 2018, Larry simply stopped accepting orders because of the number of hours involved in each. The morning after Pres. Trump’s election victory, he received EIGHT orders, but agreed to fill only THREE.
Tracing the VERSIONS of the Armisport/Chiappa Spencer that TAYLOR’s describes as an 1865 Model
shows that the first version in 44 Russian WAS FOR the cowboy action shooting sport, as were the 44 Special and 45 Colt ones. None of these would have been N-SSA approved for skirmishing because they were not “as issue” DURING the Civil War. The Armisport/Chiappa 56-50 versions appeared in the U.S. around 2005. Variations, over time, IN the external appearance of the A’Sport Spencers are detailed below.
As of March 2020, it is my opinion that ONLY the Romano Spencer is an accurate copy of the 1860 Model Rifle and Carbine models. He made NO copies of the 1865’s, but did make a few sporter versions of 1860’s. Because the Romano IS an authentic COPY of the 1860 Model, it easily passed N-SSA Production Approval.
PRICES:
The prices PAID per Forum Posts and INTERNET searches reflect steady increases:
Romano’s started at approximately $2500 in 1996 and stopped at $5300 in late 2019. Doubled in 25 years.
Fletcher-Bidwell’s were $2,395 per its May 31, 2001 order form.
Dixie paid $1,800 for the one delivered June 2002 that it listed for $2,450 and THREE years later sold for $2,350.
Armisport’s range from around $1,200 in 2002 to presently around $2,100 for rifles. Almost doubled in 18 years.
Posts over 20 years convey that Romano’s prices were between double/triple Armisport’s and
during the 2002 era, a little more than those paid for comparable Fletcher-Bidwell’s.
Total estimated sales dollars of reproduction Spencer’s :
Since the question has arisen, here’s a go at it.
Romano’s 75 Spencers at an AVERAGE price $3,900 = $ 292,500.
Howell’s 1 Semi-finished/not sold $2,400 = 2,400.
F-Bidwell 30 per Dr. Menn $2,400 = 72,000.
A’Sport 1200 Dayton’s guess $1,700 = $2,040,000.
Rough estimate of sales dollars for 1306 Spencers = $2,407,000 (Rounded)
As reproductions go, over 20 years, 1306 guns is relatively small and $2,407,400 is NOT much in total revenue. These amount to 65 a year over 20 years and annual sales of $120,000.
Over 20 years = 240 months; for 1306 total Spencer’s, is a COMBINED FIVE TO SIX SALES A MONTH!
It seems that Spencer’s have NEVER been high-demand items.
Howell’s, though N-SSA Production Approved, was never a PRODUCTION item because he said ONLY ONE, 56-50 carbine was made.
The Piper/Fletcher-Bidwell venture was an economic failure for the investors, and it bankrupted the Milwaukee machinist.
Romano’s 75 over 20 years is roughly FOUR a YEAR. In contrast, Romano’s Maynard reproductions average one a month or three times as many that now aggregate 250 examples. Larry indicated that Spencer rifles comprised approximately 20% or 15-16; the rest (62 or so) were carbines. Larry shared that he can make THREE, $4,300 Maynard’s in the TIME it took to made ONE, $5,300 Spencer rifle.
Following are the makers of “completed” Spencer RERODUCTIONS:
FIRST: Kenneth P. Howell, Jr. and his “Wisconsin” Spencer carbine:
After missing Ken at Fort Shenandoah in 2018, he told Larry Stevens and David Stavlo to tell me:
He did ONLY THREE copies of an 1860 Model CARBINE; HIS in 56-50 caliber in 1995 and ONE, EACH in 44-40 and 45 (long) Colt chambering, a bit later. The 45 Colt case needed the Lane extractor.
He still has HIS 56-50 CARBINE that was “eventually” N-SSA approved with a LANE extractor.
At one time it seems that Ken had Trademarked the “Spencer” name. That trademark may have expired.
The NAME used for N-SSA SAC Production Approval of the single “Howell carbine” was “Spencer Repeating Arms, Inc.”, (note the “Inc.”), NOT “Spencer Repeating Arms” OR as on the ORIGINALS,
“Spencer Repeating Rifle Co”, (“Company”, spelled-out), has NEVER been used ON originals or repro’s.
July 2019: Larry Stevens, a friend of Ken’s, shared:
He was IN the Lodgewood (Bill Osborne’s) sutler’s booth at Fort Shenandoah when Bill brought the gun from WI. Also, there to collaborate with Osborne were John Holland, and others. Some have said that the Howell 56-50 Spencer RECEIVER was visibly “undersized”. Stevens told me its receiver was visibly “under-sized” and that he was SURE SAC’s Production Approval of Ken’s version pre-dated Romano’s by one shoot, which is five months.
The Howell Spencer was blemished enough while at the Fort, probably from handling by the many interested people, that Ken Howell was upset upon its return.
Joe Bilby’s book CIVIL WAR FIREARMS has a section on the HOWELL Spencer at page 214. There is ALSO a photo of Bill Osborne holding what is described AS the HOWELL Spencer carbine and REFERENCING A 1996 N-SSA APPROVAL DATE. While the DATE is correct, based on information presented a bit later here, the GUN in the photo may NOT have been THE HOWELL SPENCER because of its frame finish. The one in the book appears to be color-cased, and the one Tom Hunger worked on for Board Approval had a BLUED frame.
In a Dec 2019 phone call, Tom Hunger, a longtime Fort Shenandoah sutler and gun maker, told me:
1. He recalls attending THE N-SSA Board meeting during a National Shoot in 1996 when the HOWELL Spencer was brought by Bill Osborne for Production Approval. Tom was NOT there for THAT matter.
2. He heard Bill Osborne present the Howell Spencer and watched as the Board began to inspect it, BUT ALMOST IMMEDIATELY REJECTED IT FOR APPROVAL because it did NOT hold at half-cock! The Board observed that without a reliable half-cock notch, the lowered hammer rested ON the striker and the firing pin projected through the face of the block. This condition caused the pin to drag on a spent primer because it could NOT be brought to a SAFE, half-cock position for loading.
3. The BOARD turned to Tom Hunger and asked if he could look at the gun. Tom inspected it and said that the half-cock NOTCH on the tumbler was either missing or so shallow that it was NOT functional. THE BOARD, with Bill Osborne’s approval, directed Tom to modify the tumbler to include a fully functional, SAFE half-cock feature. Tom did this overnight and after further Board inspection, granted Production APPROVAL. The HOWELL Spencer was returned to Bill Osborne.
4. I asked Tom if he attempted to cycle cartridges from the tube magazine and he said he did NOT.
5. I asked if Tom could tell if the receiver was UNDERSIZED and Tom said he was NOT sensitive to that aspect and would not have been able to say. He did not sense it was undersized, adding that
HE was NOT an expert.
6. I asked about the external coloration of the HOWELL HE WORKED ON. He said that he clearly recalls it was TOTALLY BLUED, not with a color-cased frame. The one Stavlo held during Thanksgiving, 2019 IN KEN’s Shop HAD a color-cased frame! Because Howell was upset the gun was returned blemished, perhaps he color-cased the frame. Some said HE could do such work.
Tom is certain that he did NOT blemish the gun, so the blemishes must have happened elsewhere, perhaps during days of handling in Osborne’s booth.
The “functioning” issues Tom corrected were the lack of a half-cock notch and firing pin drag.
Tom told me he did NOT attempt to cycle dummy rounds.
A couple days later, I was speaking with Tom Hunger and he ADDED that “when he got into the Howell Spencer LOCK, he found there was NOTHING on the tumbler where there should have been a half-cock notch. That area was SMOOTH.”
“Geo” told me that his #28 Fletcher-Bidwell would not cycle ctg’s from the magazine and its half-cock notch quickly failed. UNLIKE the HOWELL CARBINE WITH NO HALF-COCK, there WAS a slight half-cock “notch” on F-B #28 because Geo said it initially held and then would NOT.
The SSS Thread of 24AUG2006 “Spencer Importer ….” Contains info that Ken USED the 56-50, with a .500” land diameter for HIS Spencer because of bolt thrust issues with original spencer’s. The original 1860 was in 56-56 with larger .520” land diameter, which, for the same velocity would exert MORE rearward thrust on the block face than a .500” land diameter bullet.
Romano told me that he chose 56-50 so an internally lubed, more accurate bullet and more powder capacity would reduce 100-yd drop.
DEC19/FEB20, I called David Stavlo about cartridge cases and David shared that he had just visited Ken’s shop to buy machinery and had handled and inspected the Spencer carbine that Howell said was THE ONE HE DID in 56-50. David told Ken that I wished to know more, and Ken said he knew of me through Stevens and to ask away:
Ken told him that IT was THE ONE taken to the N-SSA for Production Approval.
“Spencer Repeating Arms, Inc.” and WI address were engraved on the top of its receiver.
David said his handling and inspection of THAT carbine indicated it was FULL-SCALE.
It is correctly finished with color-case and bluing as were original 1860’s.
IT HAS A SINGLE DIGIT SERIAL NUMBER PRECEEDED BY SOME ZERO’S. He recalled “0001”.
It is in 56-50 C-F using a blank barrel Ken bought and chambered using a reamer HE made.
Ken did HIS SPENCER CARBINE AT THE REQUEST OF AND STRICTLY FOR THE “DOCTORS”.
He made three, the one being examined by David and two for the “doctors”.
Later, Taylor’s & Co. came TO Ken, who had been collaborating with Taylor’s on Ken’s PATENTED cylinder cartridge conversions and asked him to MAKE a prototype Spencer to serve as the basis for Italian production. Ken said that he told Taylor’s he ALREADY had HIS, so Taylor’s sent KEN’s to Italy.
Ken told Stavlo that he is SURE the Armisports were ALL internally full-scale BECAUSE many of the Armisport parts he later handled INTERCHANGED with ORIGINALS.
Ken’s has the LANE extractor. (Per Marcot, Page 127, the Lane was NOT on either 1860 or 1865 Models!)
Bill Osborne told me in late Feb 2020 that Kenny said his selection of the Lane extractor was for “safety”.
Ken did NOT elaborate.
News & Blogs
Home
Posts
Recent Posts
Help
Business Directory
Calendar
Advertising Rates
Contact Us
Login
Register
