91
Star History / Re: Star or Not??
« on: February 14, 2009, 12:26:33 am »
Anybody ever find the Winchester patent that the Star was based upon?
News:
Contact is for website or forum technical issues. If you want to communicate with forum members about the contents of their posts or items they are offering for sale, you need to sign up as a member and post a reply in the topic or send them a personal message.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
92
Star History / Re: CPM on Ebay
« on: February 02, 2009, 01:56:49 pm »
Had one. Liked it. Looks like a good price.
93
Star History / Re: Star Dunn & Bradstreet Report
« on: February 02, 2009, 01:55:05 pm »
Elord told me once that they turned out 500 units a year.
94
Star History / Re: Star or Not??
« on: February 02, 2009, 01:53:42 pm »
It is a Star. The Hulmn case feeder option was added in the mid-50's. That's clearly not the case here so it is at least 55 years old.
95
Star Reloaders / Re: Star Brochure
« on: January 17, 2009, 09:53:59 pm »
The first rifle unit was just that. Made originally for the U.S. Army. Had one. Very nice machine. Then there was the Super Star Kit, Mike Dillon's first product, designed to turn a Star into a 223 reloader. Did an article on it for Gun Digest or Handloader's Digest, don't remember which. Then there was a pistol/223 unit made for a number of years. Kind of a cross between their rifle and their regular unit.
Think Ron Peterson Guns in Albuquerque has one each that I sold him maybe twelve years ago. He should also have a Star straightline. If interested call and ask for Ron.
Think Ron Peterson Guns in Albuquerque has one each that I sold him maybe twelve years ago. He should also have a Star straightline. If interested call and ask for Ron.
96
Star History / Re: star tooling
« on: December 24, 2008, 02:48:27 pm »
I'm absolutely NO fan of this fellow. Star deserved a better end than to die by inches in the hands of a idiot. He has killed the company off and done so in a way that leave a bad taste. Star probably couldn't have competed against Dillon and RCBS but the company deserved to die without doing it has this fellow has done.
97
Star History / Re: star tooling
« on: March 10, 2008, 10:47:50 am »
I've obviously tried to convince Magma that they should make the Star. I think that they have some interest but... My sense of it is that they already are swamped and that they have trouble finding skilled labor. But you could always e-mail or call them and ask.
Maybe the thing to do would be to suggest that they start making parts. If that turned out well enough, i.e. if there really was business and hence profit, that they might consider slowly inching up from parts to complete machines.
There is no doubt that they could do a good job. The question is could they make money at it.
Maybe the thing to do would be to suggest that they start making parts. If that turned out well enough, i.e. if there really was business and hence profit, that they might consider slowly inching up from parts to complete machines.
There is no doubt that they could do a good job. The question is could they make money at it.
98
Star History / Re: star tooling
« on: March 08, 2008, 09:29:41 pm »
I asked Magma in the last couple of days why they didn't buy the Star reloader when they bought the lubricator/sizer. Essentially they said that they wish that they had but that they have trouble finding skilled labor so that even if that had bought it it might not have worked out well.
They also seemed to suggest that they might be open to this idea in the future. So if anyone know the gun who has the company now you might encourgage him to approach Magma and see if they would buy him out.
They also seemed to suggest that they might be open to this idea in the future. So if anyone know the gun who has the company now you might encourgage him to approach Magma and see if they would buy him out.
99
Star History / Re: star tooling
« on: October 12, 2007, 07:38:30 pm »
Maybe he can supply springs but he clearly can not build new tools. This was a sad end for a company and product that deserved better!
100
Star History / Re: Number of Star Reloaders produced
« on: August 15, 2007, 12:18:10 am »
Cottonwood. That is just down the road. Found their address and phone number. Will give them a call tomorrow. Thanks!
Kenneth L. Walters
Flagstaff, Arizona
Kenneth L. Walters
Flagstaff, Arizona
101
Star Reloaders / Re: Longer Stroke Star Presses
« on: July 06, 2007, 11:41:02 am »
A digital picture would really help. What is the company name on it?
102
Star Reloaders / Re: Star Machine Works web page
« on: June 17, 2007, 05:24:17 pm »
Just called their number. The answering machine is still working. BUT this guy was never a credit to the star history. Such a sad ending to such a wonderful company.
103
Star Reloaders / Re: Star Machine Works web page
« on: May 25, 2007, 09:35:45 pm »
I couldn'g get it to load.
104
Star History / Re: star tooling
« on: April 20, 2007, 04:09:24 pm »The lubricator-sizer dies, parts, ect. went to Magma Engineering. Mr. Cunningham of Pioneer, CA., bought everything else; he has apparently decided to go incognito although at one time he would answer emails.
I laid into Cunningham here once about letting Star die. That got a couple e-mails from him. But my sense of this is that he was no machinest. Even if he had the necessary equipment he just didn't have the skill (nor interest). Star deserved a better fate than to fall into the hands of this guy!
105
Star History / Re: Winchester Patent
« on: March 11, 2007, 02:42:11 pm »
Before the internet when I wanted to look for old patents I simply purchased every reference in every patent I got. Time consuming and expensive but I did it. Eventually one that arrived, I know not how I got the number, was for a Winchester machine that clearly was star-like. No question about it. 1890 vintage. When this was all over I had well over 500 patents mostly about reloaders. Yes I'm sure that the Star is based on a Winchester patent I just now don't know that patent's number.