Posting here as thought maybe one of our gunwriter friends have an inside scoop…. With introductions of new rounds I keep seeing things along the lines of “Hornady said they will never make 6.8 Western because it competes with the 6.5 PRC”. It won’t surprise me if soon we here “Nosler won’t ever make 7mm PRC because it competes with 28 Nosler”. So my question is there some royalties companies get that these rounds “compete” with each other or is it simply prestige in the market place. I would think all the ammo makers hope somebody comes up with something new (or re-packaged for crumudgeons) that causes people to buy a bunch of new ammo whether it is their creation or not and will jump on whatever sells vs. holding some competitve grudge. That being said, if there are royalties involved I can see the benefit of only pushing “your cartridge”. However the only thing I have ever heard along these lines is that due to Jamison law suit the WSMs got a price adder for a while. Anybody have any ideas or this is just more internet chatter?

Lou

That's how the ".30-30" moniker came about. I believe it was Remington who didn't want to put "Winchester" on their products, but the .30 Winchester Center Fire was selling good.

Nowadays, a lot of people don't know what a .30 WCF is but everybody has heard of .30-30.

Why do you think Ruger and Cooper quit chambering the PPC? Ruger lost a patent and/or trademark case as the inventors locked it up for royalties. So it’s not just Jamison, which by the way he was right.

Marlin had a very vocal fight with Winchester in the early smokeless powder days. Primer size was one of the problems.
Recreation magazine gad a running fight with Remington-UMC ammunition.
There were other serious fights but those two are pretty well known.

Yep, also Grosvenor by accounts submitted 250 Savage necked down to 22 caliber for Winchesters new 220 Swift. There are 2 theories as to why the Lee Navy was modified.
Theory 1 is that Winchester thought that the Savage brass couldn’t handle the pressure at the base. So by modifying the Lee Navy to semi rimmed strengthened the base enough for the pressure.

Theory 2 Winchester knew that the necked down Savage brass would work but they didn’t want to use Savage brass nor pay for the rights on their brand new super cartridge. Winchester was the sole supplier/maker of Lee Navy so they owned it.

Sad, as the 22 Varminter was born a year or so later and in 63 was dubbed 22.250 Remington.

In the 1930's, Jerry Gebby, wildcatter/gunsmith of note, secured a copyright on the .22 Varminter which was nothing more nor less than the .250 Savage necked down to hold a .224 bullet. Supposedly anybody who chambered a rifle for that cartridge had to pay him a royalty. (Previously guys like Niedner and Donaldson had done the same thing but with .228" bullets, which was the standard .22CF size not .224" until 90 or so years ago.) That didn't stop a lot of guys from making .22 Varminter rifles and whether the royalties were paid is anybody's guess. When the copyright expired Remington jumped on it with both feet and the .22-250 as we know it today was born.

I've owned Winchester High Walls barreled by Gebby in R2 Lovell and .219 Wasp, but never a .22 Varminter.

Now that you mention it, it may have been Marlin instead of Remington that wouldn't label a rifle ".30 WCF".

It was Marlin that started the "30/30" moniker, I think Marlin did that across the board for all Winchester cartridges chambered in Marlin's rifles.

Remington was sued by Winchester over Remington's use of "30/30 Remington" for the 30 Remington cartridge used in the Model 8 rifle. Winchester lost the suit when it was discovered there was no copywrite on the designation while Remington dropped the use of "30/30 Remington" due to confusion between Winchester's rimmed cartridge and Remington's very similar rimless cartridge. Both sides ended up winners and losers over that fight.

The only problem with the Jamison argument is there was a near identical cartridge that pre-dated his by 40 years or so.

But that wildcat cartridge was never copyrighted or, especially, patented. And copyright and/or patent are the legal basis for that sort of stuff.

I know this partly because, like several other gun writers, I was contacted by some of the people involved in the case.

I have no business of commenting on gun writer or legalities of intellectual property, but I believe there is a concept of "prior use" that can come into play at times regarding patent fights. Not sure if this is one of them.

I'll send you an e-mail with some background information.

Jamison was right. He was black balled for years but has recently been publishing articles again which is a good thing. Always enjoyed his writings from years ago.

Marlin. Remington never chambered the 30-30

Some interesting history items but still not clear if say Remington pays Hornady something for every round of 6.5 creedmoor they sell? Or maybe Hornady has to give some permission for say Federal to load 6.5 PRC ammo? Not sure if this is handled like other intellectual property or not. On one hand seems reasonable given the R&D spend to bring out a new round. On the other hand people handload rifle cartridges and chamber custom guns in stuff all the time which seems would violate not to mention gun and ammo manufacturers

Lou

Well at least it keeps the lawyers fed.

Everybody’s gotta eat.

DF

I have seen .30-30s in Remington bolt-actions rifles made in the 50s. A friend of mine had one, he searched for years for it. He said it was a very rare bird.

And what model would that be ? The only rifle I know of made by Remington in 30-30 was the 788, made 67-83

Bet it was 30 Remington not 30-30 Winchester. They look similar. Believe it was first chambered in the Model 8

The .30 Remington cartridge was created in 1906 by Remington Arms. It was Remington's rimless answer to the popular .30-30 Winchester cartridge. Factory ammunition was produced until the late 1980s, but now it is a prospect for handloaders. Load data for the .30-30 Winchester can be used safely for the .30 Remington.

Yes, I am quite familiar with the 30 Remington. I have a pristine Model 30 Express so chambered.

Jamison sued for contract violations AND intellectual property claims. People should read the actual complaint. It is floating around on the internet.

https://casetext.com/case/jamison-v-olin-corporation-winchester-division-3

Ha, not. Main claim Patent Infringement, secondary claim of misappropriation of trade secrets, third claim breach of contract.

https://stollberne.com/case/jamison-v-olin-winchester-browning-arms-co/

Stoll Berne successfully represented patentee of “short magnum” firearms and ammunition against major firearms and ammunition manufacturers Winchester and Browning. The lawsuit settled on the eve of trial, after Stoll Berne attorneys Rob Shlachter, Tim DeJong, and Jen Wagner obtained summary judgment on infringement.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914b5f3add7b04934775e7e

JAMISON V. OLIN CORPORATION-WINCHESTER DIVISION

OPINION AND ORDER
GARR KING, District Judge

Plaintiff John R. Jamison claims to have invented, developed and patented several revolutionary types of hunting rifles and cartridge concepts. Plaintiff brings a claim for patent infringement against U.S. Repeating Arms Co., Inc., Browning, Browning Arms Co. (the "Browning defendants"), Olin Corporation-Winchester Division ("Olin"), and G.I. Joe's, Inc.

In addition, plaintiff brings a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets under the Oregon Uniform Trade Secrets Act against all defendants except G.I. Joe's, and claims for breach of express contract, breach of implied in fact contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, and intentional interference with economic relations against Olin. Finally, plaintiff brings a claim for breach of quasi-contract against all defendants except G.I. Joe's.

Just an update

Jamison was issued a patent found here in 1999.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US5970879A/en

It's been a while since I've read the actual opinion but my memory is Jamsion lost a summary judgment on the patent claims and what settled was a theft of trade secrets that he took the idea to Winchester/baco who cut him put when they started production on the idea

Buzzards gotta eat, same as worms

Yep.

Analogy appreciated.

DF

Listed buzzards-
Robert A. Shlachter, Timothy S. DeJong, Jacob S. Gill Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting Shlachter P.C., Portland, Oregon, William O. Geny, Chernoff Vilhauer McClung Stenzel LLP Portland, Oregon, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

James R. Farmer, Mark A. Miller, Brett L. Foster, L. Grant Foster, Timothy P. Getzoff, Holland Hart LLP, Salt Lake City, Utah, Jeffrey S. Love, Ramon A. Klitzke, II, Richard D. McLeod, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, Portland, Oregon, Attorneys for Defendants Browning, Browning Arms Co., and U.S. Repeating Arms Co., Inc.

Robert E. Sabido, Cosgrave Vergeer Kester LLP, Portland, Oregon, Stephen D. Gay, Husch Eppenberger, LLC, Chattanooga, TN, Dutro E. Campbell, II, Gregory E. Upchurch, Husch Eppenberger, LLC, St. Louis, MO, Attorneys for Defendants Olin Corporation-Winchester Division and G.I. Joe's, Inc.

Theory 2 is almost certainly correct. See "Origins of the 220 Swift", p. 27-34, Gun Digest 2009.

When Wotkyns obtained close to 4000 fps with his 22-250, Western Cartridge Co. asked him to send his rifle and ammo to them for evaluation. The 22-250 bullets poked holes in Western's steel backstop at their test facility, which no previous cartridge had been able to accomplish. Western then forwarded the rifle and ammo to Winchester (then a Western subsidiary) for further testing.

After their tests Winchester notified Wotkyns that they planned to produce the cartridge commercially. Neither series of tests displayed any weakness in the 250 case. The American Rifleman (May 1935) published photos of Wotkytns' 22-250 cartridge, implying that it was to be introduced soon. However, some Winchester executive(s?) decided that their company could not and would not introduce a cartridge based on a Savage case design.

Winchester asked Wotkyns to recommend a suitable Winchester case. He suggested the Lee Navy case, which Winchester then modified and strengthened significantly to become the 220 Swift case.

According to Phil Sharpe, the whole experience with Winchester left Wotkyns pretty bitter.
--Bob