Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Win 1885 - Thick Side vs Octagon Top  acti (Read 38643 times)
Green_Frog
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline


"It ain't easy being green"
ASSRA Life #281

Posts: 4072
Location: Lynchburg, VA
Joined: Apr 18th, 2004
Re: Win 1885 - Thick Side vs Octagon Top  acti
Reply #60 - Apr 30th, 2007 at 8:41am
Print Post  
Never fear, the colorful if sometimes curmudgeonly JDS is back and all is well with the world.  See Josh's explanation in the General section, labeled "Apology."   

To Josh, if he sees this, thanks once again for doing a great job that is frequently taken for granted.  Although most of us tend to regard the use of the Internet and this Forum like air and water, it is really a job for unsung heroes like you to keep this going.  We should never "ignore the man behind the curtain."  (With proper thanks to Frank Baum!)

Regards,
Charlie Shaeff
the Green Frog
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
J.D.Steele
Ex Member


Re: Win 1885 - Thick Side vs Octagon Top  acti
Reply #61 - Apr 30th, 2007 at 11:55am
Print Post  
Yes, much to the dismay of some who shall remain nameless, I have indeed returned. At first I thought it was my sparkling wit and incisive repartee that got me banned, but it was merely the anti-spam efforts gone somewhat awry.

Josh has once again come through with a solution and I'm now a happy boy. Thanks much, Josh!

VP: I've always heard that it was "Verified Proof" but that's just hearsay. I do know for a fact that almost every collector book has its errors and I've found several in the various Winchester and Colt books, so I tend to take their info with a grain of salt unless it agrees with logic or personal observation and experience. "Violent Proof" has never sounded very professional to my ear.

The Win SST is a complicated little devil with many inter-related dimensions and actions. Some of the interactions can be easily adjusted but others are a problem. It appears simple at first glance but it certainly is not.

I plan a future article for the Journal about the Win SST, if DWS will ever publish my long-ago-submitted quarter-rib article!
Regards, Joe
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Recoil Rob
Participating Member
*
Offline



Posts: 25
Location: NY/CT Borderlands
Joined: Apr 15th, 2007
Re: Win 1885 - Thick Side vs Octagon Top  act
Reply #62 - Apr 30th, 2007 at 12:02pm
Print Post  
Glad you're back Joe.

So just replacing the missing parts on my SST probably isn't going to result in an operational trigger? Need an expert?


Thanks, Rob
  

"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut."&&Ernest Hemmingway
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Green_Frog
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline


"It ain't easy being green"
ASSRA Life #281

Posts: 4072
Location: Lynchburg, VA
Joined: Apr 18th, 2004
Re: Win 1885 - Thick Side vs Octagon Top  acti
Reply #63 - Apr 30th, 2007 at 12:51pm
Print Post  
"An expert is a guy with a briefcase more than 30 miles from home."   Wink

I'm sure that Joe will agree that putting in the missing parts is the first step, and it MAY take care of your problem, but a little tweaking of the knock-off spring and the sear spring, as well as some selective polishing of engaging and friction-generating surfaces may be needed as well.  Don't forget that the fly must be present in the hammer and swinging freely so the sear clears the half cock notch.   The proper adjustment of the screw coming down behind the trigger shoe is the final step.  Huh

The bumble bee doesn't know it's impossible for him to fly, so he does...that sort of sums up some of my gunsmithing!   Cheesy

Froggie
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
hst
Oldtimer
*****
Offline



Posts: 569
Joined: Jun 3rd, 2004
Re: Win 1885 - Thick Side vs Octagon Top  acti
Reply #64 - Apr 30th, 2007 at 1:57pm
Print Post  
Green_Frog wrote on Apr 30th, 2007 at 8:41am:
...sometimes curmudgeonly JDS...


JDS? Curmudgeonly?

You make it the joke, no?


Glenn
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Recoil Rob
Participating Member
*
Offline



Posts: 25
Location: NY/CT Borderlands
Joined: Apr 15th, 2007
Re: Win 1885 - Thick Side vs Octagon Top  act
Reply #65 - Apr 30th, 2007 at 8:07pm
Print Post  
Green_Frog wrote on Apr 30th, 2007 at 12:51pm:
"An expert is a guy with a briefcase more than 30 miles from home."   Wink

I Don't forget that the fly must be present in the hammer and swinging freely so the sear clears the half cock notch.   

Froggie


The fly is one of my missing parts and it doesn't show in any of my diagrams. I see that there were two types of flys, the early one (which I imagine my early gun would have used) doesn't allow half cock. Can I use either type of fly or should I keep to the original style?


Thanks, Rob
  

"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut."&&Ernest Hemmingway
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Andy
Ex Member


Re: Win 1885 - Thick Side vs Octagon Top  act
Reply #66 - Apr 30th, 2007 at 8:43pm
Print Post  
(The Win SST is a complicated little devil with many inter-related dimensions and actions. Some of the interactions can be easily adjusted but others are a problem. It appears simple at first glance but it certainly is not.)

Boy you have got this right Mr. Steele. Spent better part of a couple days with my example and it is still not right. All the pins in my set are the same diameter unlike the ones shown in Campbell and DeHass. The pins which index the trigger with the kicker and the pin over the kicker spring that goes thru the whole tang are smaller than shown.

Made a new two dia. pin, one dia. for the slot in the trigger and another dia. for the kicker. Nice no slop.

The kicker spring is less swoopy much like what is shown on page 42 of Campbell's book. It gets better, this thru pin which stops the kicker spring was filed down to about half it's dia.. I figured this did not make manufacturing sense so made and installed a new pin of full dia. and it did not work, not enough snap to trip the sear. So made another pin and split the difference and the hammer would not cock. Cut thin strips of shim stock and slid them between the spring and pin until I had just a little bit of play against the sear and then made a third pin filed to this stack thickness. This gave me a very nice unset pull but the set pull barely permit you to get your finger on the trigger before release. I have the adjustment screw backed out. It seems that the kicker is rolled to far back.

At this point I decided to give it a rest before I did something stupid with original parts and be sorry for it.

Oh by the way none of this worked when brought the rifle home.

Cheers, Andy
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Recoil Rob
Participating Member
*
Offline



Posts: 25
Location: NY/CT Borderlands
Joined: Apr 15th, 2007
Re: Win 1885 - Thick Side vs Octagon Top  act
Reply #67 - Apr 30th, 2007 at 9:31pm
Print Post  
Yeesh, frustrating just to read.


So who do I send it to that has a handle on this stuff.


Thanks, Rob
  

"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut."&&Ernest Hemmingway
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Green_Frog
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline


"It ain't easy being green"
ASSRA Life #281

Posts: 4072
Location: Lynchburg, VA
Joined: Apr 18th, 2004
Re: Win 1885 - Thick Side vs Octagon Top  acti
Reply #68 - Apr 30th, 2007 at 11:01pm
Print Post  
Rob, 
     I'm sorry to say I can't give you a name to send it to, unless one of the regulars on this board volunteers (hint, hint  Wink ) but in answer to your other question, I used the later fly without problem on a late action SST (its problems were elsewhere) and on a coil spring action (takedown) high-wall with DSTs built by the late Ben Rice.  I would say based on my limited experience, that the later ones SHOULD work, but YMMV, especially with SSTs that are so cranky anyway.  Probably not what you wanted to hear, but...  The good news is that Ballard makes flat spring rifles, so their flies should be right for your rifle.   Cheesy

Froggie
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Brent
Ex Member


Re: Win 1885 - Thick Side vs Octagon Top  act
Reply #69 - Apr 30th, 2007 at 11:09pm
Print Post  
I have had two single sets operated on - once not so well.   

I sent that trigger to Ballard Rifle and with new parts, it came back perfect.  So I highly recommend their work if not their billing.

The other trigger was operated by that same board regular.  He is known to be a sorcerer of Winchesters and can make them do his bidding with a single incantation and some newt eyes....   I don't know how he does it but in the end, he gets them working perfectly.

Brent
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Recoil Rob
Participating Member
*
Offline



Posts: 25
Location: NY/CT Borderlands
Joined: Apr 15th, 2007
Re: Win 1885 - Thick Side vs Octagon Top  act
Reply #70 - May 1st, 2007 at 12:53am
Print Post  
Can just the trigger group on the plate be worked on or is the entire action needed?
  

"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut."&&Ernest Hemmingway
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
J.D.Steele
Ex Member


Re: Win 1885 - Thick Side vs Octagon Top  acti
Reply #71 - May 1st, 2007 at 11:37am
Print Post  
Bob, the entire action and occasionally also the buttstock are needed for the best job. The reason is twofold: first, although all wall parts were made 'to gauge', the gauge was pretty sloppy and there's ~ a 0.002-0.003" variation (plus-or-minus) in most parts dimensions. Second, often the act of tightening the tang screw will alter the geometry of the tang and trigger enough to make the parts not work properly. Also, any subsequent heat-treatment such as case-coloring will often change the dimensions and relationships slightly.

If you need more, I'll be happy to give an opinion any time. Or if you need actual physical assistance, I'm always open to bribery! (VBG) Don't know nuthin' 'bout no newt eyes though, Brent's the Biology expert here.
Good luck, Joe
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
vigillinus
Ex Member


Re: Win 1885 - Thick Side vs Octagon Top  acti
Reply #72 - May 19th, 2007 at 12:33am
Print Post  

Bert, two more blued round top thickwalls for the data base:

114922, flatspring, 30" round .30-40, Winchester A-5, blanks in sight slots, straight grip, buttstock a replacement

124371, coilspring action only, tang bent to pg more sharply than standard, don't know what it was like originally
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bert_H.
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 145
Location: Kingston
Joined: May 13th, 2004
Re: Win 1885 - Thick Side vs Octagon Top  acti
Reply #73 - May 20th, 2007 at 4:38pm
Print Post  
Quote:

Bert, two more blued round top thickwalls for the data base:

114922, flatspring, 30" round .30-40, Winchester A-5, blanks in sight slots, straight grip, buttstock a replacement

124371, coilspring action only, tang bent to pg more sharply than standard, don't know what it was like originally


Thanks Smiley I already had 114922 in my database, but 124371 is a new serial number.  Are you absolutely sure that the lower tang is original to the frame (considering that it has been modified, it may not be original). The vast number of Model 1885s in that serial range were Winder Muskets (the low-wall variety), and they are identical in size to a standard high-wall lower tang.

Bert
  

Real Men own and shoot a WINCHESTER Single Shot!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
vigillinus
Ex Member


Re: Win 1885 - Thick Side vs Octagon Top  acti
Reply #74 - May 25th, 2007 at 10:32pm
Print Post  
Bert I have now examined 124371 more closely, the lower tang fits the frame exactly as tho polished at the same time, however the blue is much worn compared to the frame, this could either be because the blue was spoiled when the tang was bent to a sharper pg OR because it is not original to the frame.  I suspect, frankly, the latter.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 
Send TopicPrint