evidence exists that suggests Harwood actually adjusted case capacity, and that there was a method to his madness. Shortly before 1890, a handful of rifle cranks thought that one fault common to most of the breech loading rifles of the era was that too little powder was used in the black powder cartridges. The shooters supposed that to produce a black powder cartridge of “good killing power” and “great range,” there ought to be a prescribed ratio between powder charge and bullet weight. Specifically, the reasoning dictated that the black powder charge, in grains, should be one third of the bullet’s weight, in grains. Reportedly, this basic formula was used to determine appropriate charges for artillery pieces in the 1870s. The 44-40-200, as an example, failed


to meet this criteria with a 20% propor- tion, as did a popular loading of the 45-70 with only 17%. Coming very close was the 50-95-300 and the 40-82-260 at nearly 32%. In Harwood’s Hornet, we find the proportion of powder weight to bullet weight to be very slightly better than the one to three ratio. The Hornet failed to gain the accep-


tance its designer anticipated. This may have happened simply because it was a bottle necked shell, which in those days were viewed suspiciously. Bottle necked shells were considered hard to load and were prone to separation. The 22-25-60 Stevens was brought out in reaction to the 22-20 Hornet. It had the advantage of being a straight walled case and filled the same niche as the Hornet cartridge. Its introductory date of 1896 was hardly a coincidence. The 22-15-60 was never overly popular either. In the history of cartridge develop-


ment, Rueben Harwood’s most valuable contribution appears to have been that he fixed in the minds of an era’s civilian rifle shooters the advantages of burning a bit more powder. He was the first experi- menter to equate an increase in a bullet’s velocity with a corresponding increase in its power and the straightness of its path to the target, and to convey the message to the literate public. Not to be overlooked, he contrived a working example based on this principle and showed the people how the concept worked. Although the Hornet wasn’t a howling success com- mercially, it is nevertheless significant in a historical sense. It was man’s first effort at a high speed 22 caliber, and the


very first of very many 22 centerfires in wildcat form. In addition, the 22-20-55 may have inspired other experimenters to follow Harwood’s example of altering an existing cartridge case. It has been written that the Hornet


of Rueben Harwood was the inspiration for Hervey Lovell’s 22-3,000, the smoke- less powder centerfire wonder of the 1930s, which also had the 25-20 S.S. as its parent case. Harwood’s 22-20 was a step for-


ward, and not innovation for its own sake. It fulfilled an actual need that Har- wood had been instrumental in creating. No one has ever intimated that it was a gimmick to sell rifles and chambering jobs. The first Hornet’s lack of acceptance seems to be traceable to its untimely un- leashing upon a badly underestimated and unresponsive market. Taken as a whole, the average 1890s rifle crank was uninterested in the merits of a speedy 22. Few had the tendency to specialize, and fewer still had the itch, interest, or disposable dollars to sample that latest fad in the shooting world. The notion and the concept that spawned Harwood’s 22-20 were destined to remain dormant a while longer. Two more decades would pass before riflemen would fall under the spell of high velocity rifle cartridges. Despite the initial flurry of interest,


and the predictions of increased popular- ity, the Hornet failed to overcome the Gay ’90s rifleman’s impassiveness. By 1897, Harwood’s Hornet idea had withered and


blown away. It is estimated that Rueben Harwood chambered about fifty rifles for his 22-20 shell. Whether the Stevens Arms Co. ever produced a 22 Harwood Hornet has been a debatable point. A Pennsyl- vania hunter, however, reported that he obtained two Stevens Ideal rifles factory chambered for the Hornet. For a very few, however, the Stevens/Harwood Hornet combination represented the ultimate small game and woodchucking system of the late 19th century. Those who fell for the Hornet tended to realize and appreci- ate its potential, and the remarkably few appraisals that made it into print were overwhelmingly flattering. One Floridian was especially en-


thusiastic, although retrospectively. In the October 1916 issue of Outers Book, we find an old timer’s letter to the edi- tor of the magazine’s gun department, reminiscing on his younger years when he was a Harwood Hornet owner and operator. Identified only by the initials C.S.K., this man had a pet Stevens Ideal chambered for the Hornet and fitted with a 15 power telescope. He used it to shoot “... plenty of squirrels, woodchuck, hawks, ducks and tin cans.” Of his rela- tionship with the rifle, he was moved to say, “The shooting I did with this rifle and the 22 Hornet cartridge in the ’90s was the most pleasant experience of my life with the gun. The taste lingers.” We should all have a varmint rifle like that.


www.varminthunter.org Page 105


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173  |  Page 174  |  Page 175  |  Page 176  |  Page 177  |  Page 178  |  Page 179  |  Page 180  |  Page 181  |  Page 182  |  Page 183  |  Page 184  |  Page 185  |  Page 186  |  Page 187  |  Page 188  |  Page 189  |  Page 190  |  Page 191  |  Page 192  |  Page 193  |  Page 194  |  Page 195  |  Page 196