A while back we were discussing the differences in the #44 Newhouse. So here are some pictures of what I think is the production line of the trap.
#1 pic. is a small pan #4, O.C. Newhouse, circa 1882-95. As u can see this trap has the Kenwood base link and swivel with 13 links of 4 1/2 wolf trap chain and the Kenwood figure 8 cold shut.
I believe this trap was the forerunner of the #44.

#2 pic. Here we have a Large pan without a pat. date Newhouse stamped #44 circa 1895-1911. I believe this is the first actual #44 that was produced. It has the Kenwood base link and swivel with 13 links of wolf trap chain and ring with the figure 8 Kenwood cold shut. Now some of the later large pan no pat. date 44's probably made around 1910-11 had the regular 44 set up with the round rod chain, connector and cast swivel.

#3 pic. This is another variation of the #44 which has the Kenwood base link small cast swivel and a #4 flat link chain. They also made some of these with the 4 1/2 wolf trap chain. The trap in the picture is a pat. date but I have also had one without a pat. date.

#4 pic. This is a pat. date Newhouse stamped #44. It has a round rod chain connector cast swivel with the 13 links wolf trap chain with the ring. I believe most pat. dated 44's came with this setup. As u can see this trap has a split jaw post which puts it in the 1916-18 era.
So this is my take on the #44 Newhouse chain set ups.

ok people.
Anyone know why my pictures are upside down? What do I do to fix this problem?

Nice pics, thanks for sharing!

Can't help you with the pics, but WOW!!! Excellent collection and you've done some homework....
Out of curiosity, does the swivel in the #3 pic have a 3 on it?

Diggerdale there are no numbers on this swivel

Mike, Nice traps.
For the most part you are correct, your dates are off just a little and there are several more variations that you did not mention. I would love to fill in the gaps between but I am getting ready to go on a hunting trip, maybe when I get back I can help.

Thanks for sharing.

That would be great Dean..always good to learn more..I have three more chain variations that I did not post cause cause iam not sure where they fall in
.

I have never seen any written documentation that there was a #4 "forerunner" of the #44. Regardless, there would not be a small #4 pan on a #44...conflicting time periods.
Gerstell puts first production of #44 around 1911-1912. My research indicates more like 1908-1910 from purchase orders by US Forest Service (first official predator control agency 1905-1914). There would not be a designated Gov't trap go into production without Gov't agency orders; there would not be Gov't agency orders without Gov't agency money; all appropriations were after 1905...this would be long after small pans were gone.
The first #44s had large pans with no pat date.

lwm go to page 5 on this forum topic title 44 chains and check out snake collectors comments he explains the small pan #4 alot better than I do

IWM,
Just a note, the #31 1/2 Newhouse came out in 1905 with a small pan and I believe that the other size Newhouse traps also had small pans at that time. The #91 and #91 1/2 Newhouse also came out in 1905 with small pans. I agree that I have not seen a #44 marked small pan but they were making the #44 style chain set up on small pan #4's. I have also seen several large pan #4's with the #44 style chain. I have not seen the #44 listed in any Oneida Community catalogs until 1920. However, I am sure that they were being made well before that. Oneida Community shows the #4 Newhouse with the #44 style chain in their 1913 catalog and 1914 Trappers Guide.

All of the first Canadian traps in small sizes had small pans. The Canadian factory never opened till 1896. Small pans definitely reached into the early 1900s on Canadian traps. The first of the small Canadian traps to increase pan size was the number four sized traps. Almost all Canadian number fours have a big pan. There is a very few that don't.

That's interesting..I picked up a #44 this week that is a large pan no patent date that has Oneida community NY on the pan but the springs only read S.Newhouse Oneida community in two lines no State or country is stamped on them some say that it is probably Canadian but I really don't know

I am well aware of small pans on many early trap models including #4 deer trap preceding #14 and #4 pans on early #3.5 and 31.5, that is well documented.
However, a 44 chain set up on a small pan #4 does not make it a predecessor to the #44...or the first #44.

The diagram above showing #4 with chain & base link is a large pan...you could order a #4 with any variety of chain set-ups.

My point is; production small pans would not be used on #44s that were first offered to Gov't contracts well after 1906.

The first #44 had a large pan with no pat date, most likely introduced in 1908-1910 to fill USFS purchase orders.

If anyone has real documentation to the contrary, I would be very interested in seeing it.

Thx

One final note:

The ONLY thing that separates a #44 from the #4 with base link & chain (above in diagram) is a "44" on the pan.
Show me a legitimate small pan #44 and I will concede.

IWM,
I totally agree with what you are saying. But, Does that mean that a #23/#24 Newhouse clutch trap is not a #23/#24 if it only has a #3/#4 on the pan? Oneida Community advertised them as #23/#24, even though they did not call the #44 a #44 until 1920.

They named the #44 much earlier than 1920...it was not advertised to the public until then. Partly as a marketing ploy and partly as in response to Gov't trappers (Forest Rangers) requests, Newhouse wanted to designate a #4 size trap as a special Gov't issue (quite spontaneously) sometime around 1908.
Your analogy of early pans on the #s 23 & 24, #4 deer trap, #s 3.5 and 31.5 (including #5 Community as predecessor to #15) reflected a development process leading up to a different concept of a trap. The #44 was simply a RENAMING of a trap model that all ready existed in order to designate it as a Gov't trap. The only difference was another 4 added to the pan; so in this specific case, a #44 can only have a "#44" pan.
Therefore, the first production "#44" was a large pan with no pat date. I am not saying there was not a small pan #4 with #44 chain set-up; I'm saying it was not the first #44.
I have been researching Gov't traps for 28 years and would love to find any evidence that the #4 small pan with base link & chain represented the development process leading to a #44...bring it on!
Thx

This has been a good and interesting thread,it's always good to hear other people's thoughts and perspectives and I want to thank you all for your compliments on my traps.now as to the small pan #4 controversy I am going to stick to my theory that it was the FORUNNER to the #44,iam pretty sure that it was never marketed as a 44 but iam sure the thought process was there if you go way back the newhouse #4 was marketed as THE BEAVER TRAP around or shortly after the turn of century you can tell by some of there ads they were wanting to focus on a trap for the western wolfer and as we see in their ads they came up with the #4 with the kenwood base link and swivel and apparently you could order them this way and it became a good product for them and is stated so in many of their ads in the early part of the 20th century. So I think eventually after the demand got greater as they did with many other traps the number got changed for easier marketing I never said the small pan #4 was a #44 just a for runner but I do believe if you have a collection of 44s and there is not an original small pan 4 with the center swivel set up in it your collection is not complete anyway this is my point of view..the 44 is a neat little trap to collect there are many different variations along with the federal and state stampings that you come across especially on the patent date ones it's just a fun trap to collect

Great educational post!
Another question...was there any researched evidence that the centered base link on the 44 had any advantage to the trapper or trapped animal?
Was there an increased swiveling advantage, was the paw centered thus preventing possible damage.... etc?

mchewk good questions and I really don't know,I do know many of the western and government coyote and wolf trappers preferred them as well as the trappers in Texas and New Mexico where they had the red wolf really liked them as far as any research goes I don't know maybe some of our other members can chime in and let us know

The center link and heavier chain set-up on a #4 frame was requested by the first OFFICIAL Gov't trappers (Forest Rangers) working for the US Forest Service after 1905. It held better on wolves and other large mammal predator catches. This is not a theory, it is a fact...I have copies of that communication.

BTW- I have small pan #4s with Kenwood chain set-up but I don't hang them with my 39- #44 Newhouses (or 2-#44 ATC Onieda-Newhouses)...I will move them over in line when I see more evidence than assumption.

Just my opinion.

As you can tell by my posts, I am over-passionate about #44s and am receiving more email & phone questions than I have time to handle right now.
I have studied #44s for many years because they are the first officially designated Newhouse Gov't trap and I limit my discussions to Gov't/official research traps.
Two questions I am getting repeatedly are:
1) why do so many pat date 44s have split jaw posts?
2) why don't pre-pat date 44s have factory Gov't stamping if some went to Gov't agencies?

An abbreviated answer for both is that until 1914, the only official organized predator control was by the US Forest Service (1905-1914). Trap/equipment orders were sparse & sporadic do to lack of primary funding. In 1914, Congress charged the Biological Survey with all official animal damage control and followed with a $125,000 appropriation in 1915-16 (equivalent to $3,051,040 in 2018) that jump-started official purchases. At the same time, the US was about to enter WW1 and conservation of cast parts began; thus resulting in split posts fashioned from sheet metal instead. Because early Gov't trappers had been introduced to the pre-pat date #44s, and a "designated Gov't issue trap" was more easily requisitioned by newly funded Agencies; a spike in orders occurred for pat date #44s during split jaw post period (1916-1918). Many of these were converted back to cast jaw posts afterwards by trappers unhappy with integrety of split posts.
When figuring out production forensics on Gov't traps, it ALWAYS correlates to Agency authority (via correspondence) and subsequent funding. Until Newhouse realized the significance of Gov't purchases after 1915-16, they couldn't justify investing in personalized press & stamp tooling. With onset of Gov't purchase orders and establishment of Agency rules concerning proof of ownership from origin (factory), they initiated "property of" stamping of trap parts before assembly. After 1925, ATC greatly expanded this stamping process on most Gov't traps, but the production of #44s dwindled about the same time as OC-ATC transition.

I don't collect traps or own a #44, but this has been a very interesting thread.

Great information !

cfowler,

You are probably better off. Trap collecting is a disease for which there is no cure, and one most likely takes it to his grave.

I always did say "the ultimate catch of any trap is a collector"

IWM, Thank you for sharing the information about government traps. It is great that you have collected that information and are willing to share it.

Mods, this is some great information, is there anywhere in the archives for it?

Thanks IWM great info...still puzzles me... why put a high quality swivel like that on these traps (and others) but still manufacture traps with the end ring? Why not on the chain end and/or throughout the chain? Tying/wiring off to a stake or drag is better?

MChewk,

It is well established that you could order the #44 with or without chain ring. A factory production supervisor once told me that a chain without ring was percieved by many as incomplete, and that the manufacturer was better off letting buyer modify chain set-ups.
I know most #44s I have found in Texas have 6 ft flatlink, also swiveled in middle, with a drag. Many Gov't traps ordered by Texas had the same 6 ft chain set up including #14 and #4.5.
One thing is certain; Newhouse and Onieda Newhouse (ATC) were in the trap business to make money...custom chain set ups were very common in substantial Gov't orders.

Thanks IWM....guess those old wolfers knew their business well.

IVM, how's that book coming along?

Slow going on the book.

2 roadblocks in recent months:

1) since trappers have learned about my book, I am getting a flood of new information on gov't funded projects & equipment...much from retired wolf team members who have a great deal of first-hand information to contribute. Additionally, we have lost a couple of key characters I counted on for documentation this year and am in the process of following up with company employees and/or family members. Each time I learn new credible information, I have to rewrite that chapter (especially Mech jaws, ATC in later years, and LPC).

2) copywrite laws are preventing me from using many of my supporting photos. I have a large accumulation of historic, official UPI and local newspaper photos that I have been warned not to use by legal departments in several national publishing conglomerates. Also, you would not believe the number of surviving family members that don't want photos given to me by deceased contributors published. Many of these actual photos supply visual proof of my preceding text, so I have had to circumnavigate reference to these pics in my writings. Anyone who investigates copywrite infringement of photos will be shocked at their prohibitive use for many years...my attorneys conclude even more restrictive than with most written material.

Majority of restrictions apply to "for profit" commercial publications and may be waivered (with permission) when used in educational formats. We have been investigating all possible avenues including electronic versions available through club memberships.

I'll keep plugging away at the book and hopefully have a presentation available soon.

Thanks for asking,
Dan

Wow! Had no idea.
Question about wolf trapping and traps...what is your knowledge/experience about the older Oneida made # 14 Newhouse traps having the clevis rivet failing?
I remember reading a post from Alaskan/Canadian forums about the rivet opening up?? I believe the Oneida made #14 traps had the split in that clevis rivet if I am not mistaken....
Thanks ahead of time,
Mike

I don't have any info on clevis failure on #14s.

Most all traps used by wolfers that I have seen or obtained have been altered to strengthen weak points according to individual trappers opinions...quite a few variations in modifications and opinions!

Same with lion trappers.

Thanks...not clevis failure per say but rivet connected to clevis...I believe the older #14s had a split in the rivet...possibly for positioning on to clevis...then crimped shut?