Hi Folks,
Have been reading the archives for Low Wall topics since I have one in 218 Bee. There are several comments on calibers for a Low Wall. But most of the comments do not recommend rechambering to the 32-40. The 218 Bee has a  standard operating pressure of 40,000 C.U.P. Based on Accurate's reloading manual... and they list the 32-40 has generating 30,000 C.U.P. Now my question is. How can the action be safe for a 218 Bee and not safe for the 32-40? Is this problem related more to barrel shank diaimeter? 
Thanks,
George

Barrel shank diameter is one problem.  The low wall was used for pistol cartridges and small rifle cartridges, and had a smaller shank than the high wall.  It's doable, but the barrel gets too thin in the chamber area for most rifle cartridges.  In addition to the barrel shank, bolt thrust becomes a problem with bigger case heads.  The breech block isn't supported fully, and the torque from hotter or larger headed cartridges tends to crack the frame at the back of the mortise.

dave

Dave, 
It is my understanding that some High Walls were built with a small barrel shank, having the same deminisionas as the Low Wall barrel shank .825. Aren't the reciever rings the same deminisions? 
 
Browning and Uberti are now making the Low Wall in several modern calibers. I know there will some difference in metal composion in the old rifles but I don't think that bolt thrust would be a factor in either case. If the new rifles are chambered for modern 30-30 ammo I would think that my old one should be safe for a low pressure 32-40 round.   
 
My plans for this rifle are to make it into my first Schuetzen Rifle, to shoot cast bullets for the 200 yds Offhand matches. 
 
I am a a new guy at this style of shootings, so I am learning along the way. I have a Stevens 44, shot out (22-15-60) that I have rebarreled to 22LR for those matches and hope to use the Low Wall for the center fire matches. 
 
And if the Low Wall is not a good idea for a 32-40, it will soon become a 25-21. 
 
Thanks to all that have joined in to help answer my question. 
 
George 

The idea of a 32-40 low wall is a recurring one and obviously has wide appeal. Winchester apparently chambered a very few low walls for this cartridge early in production, but later discontinued the practice. Henry Beverage, in the early issues of 'Rifle' magazine, detailed his procedures for buildng his spare low wall parts into a 32-40 intended for Schuetzen shooting only.

However these low wall 32-40s had one BIG thing in common. They were intended for very low-pressure shooting, with either black powder or reduced charges of smokeless. The fact that Winchester discontinued this cartridge in their low walls is very significant IMO, and it appears that this discontinuance occurred at about the same time that the 32-40 cartridge began to be loaded with smokeless, and after very very few had been produced.

Mr Beverage may have been OK with his reduced Schuetzen smokeless charges in his low wall (a Winder as I recall), but what about the next owner? Or the one after that?

IMO it's not the small barrel shank that's the problem, it's the design of the low side walls and the resulting below-the-centerline thrust vector. The small Martini Cadet action has a much smaller barrrel shank (0.750") but is perfectly safe with any of the 30-30 class of cartridges because of its superior design. True, barrels of some early US rifles were made of softer steel than common today and so tended to bulge under heavy loads, but the low wall failures we see in modern times are caused by the receiver side walls splitting at the rear of the breechblock mortise, not barrel shank bulging.

Comparison of a Winder musket frame with a standard flat-side low wall frame and a standard flare-side high wall frame will reveal that the Winder frame is thicker on the top side than the low wall and the walls come up a little higher toward the centerline of the bore, supporting the breechblock in a firmer fashion. Basically identical to the high wall frame except for the wall height. I personally am morally certain that the only dimensional differences between the Winder and std high wall frames are the low side walls, and that the Winder frames are MAYBE a little stronger as a result. But not very much stronger.

Please bear in mind that the Winder-framed rifles that are being used in BPCRS competition today are loaded with black powder ONLY, which will generate much less than 30k psi. And they are Winders, not the more-common flat side low wall which is weaker IMO.

I was taught in gunsmithing school that the low walls were marginal even for a hot-loaded 218 Bee cartridge, and shouldn't be used for anything larger or higher-pressure.

Bottom line, I love low walls but I ain't building any of mine for any 32-40 cartridge, or any 223 neither.
JMOFWIW, good luck, Joe