The instructors @ the Trinidad gunsmithing program in the 1960s used to tell us that the 218 Bee was about the max for the low wall if loading smokeless to the usual pressures. I've seen several chambered for the 256 Win Mag, 22 Super Jet, etc with no problems. The Win parts man in AZ told me he had a frame that cracked while shooting 223 Rem, and the Win parts man in FL had another cracked frame (paperweight now) that he allowed me to cannibalize the upper tang from, don't know what it was chambered for. The FL receiver had been welded up and then reused and recracked. I've fired a low wall Hornet for many years with no problems. My acquaintance Jerry Kelley, a gunsmith in NE, uses Winder musket low walls to build 40-65 BPCRS rifles, apparently with no problems.

Please bear in mind that the Winder receivers are slightly larger than the usual flat-side low wall and therefor would presumably be very slightly stronger.

Heavy emphasis on the 'presumably' and 'very slightly'!

I like low walls & usually possess 4-5 or more at any given time, and have come to a few conclusions about them. Bear in mind that these are strictly my own personal conclusions and that I'm known for pushing the envelope at times, so these conclusions are probably about the max that could be expected from the average low wall, IMO.

• No 223 Rem at all, at all, ever.

• No smokeless loads exceeding 40-45K psi in the Bee and 256 WM-size cases.

• Minimum headspace with all CF cartridges.

• No smokeless loads at all in the larger CF cases like the 32-40, 25-35 etc. and I personally would never dispose of a low wall in any of these chamberings because of the liability issue.

I like to hot-rod things, so IMO these limits are the absolute max for an adventurous shooter. Believe me, I'd just love to have a low wall 223 Rem, but IMO it's just too much!
JMOFWIW, Joe

Ditto to what has been said by both JD and Brent.  If you want to build a rifle to shoot rifle class loads, use a high-wall.  If you want a pistol class round, you can use a low-wall, but even then, don't get carried away.  I have used a flat side low-wall for .32 Mag a couple of times and am currently building a flat side low-wall in .25-20 SS.  Those would be my upper limits.  The .38-40 and .44-40 are BP rounds in pistol class and at that level are OK, but I would look real hard before even going to to .38 spl/.357 mag chambering. 

My dear friend and mentor Charlie Dell was very discouraging toward my proposal to use a Winder musket action for a .32-357 project....just not enough strength reserve!  I will say that I have encountered two low-wall receivers that had been stretched significantly using .25-20 (IIRC, one was in SS and one in WCF) but will restrict my smokeless shooting in the project rifle to MILD target loads.  All for now, as with all things, YMMV, but I have to ask, "Why subject yourself to the risk?"

Froggie

IMO smokeless in your rifle would be fine as long as you keep to black powder pressures, that is, no more than ~20-25K psi and lower is better. The rifle doesn't care which powder is used, it cares only what pressures it is asked to handle.

The low wall's design is such that it almost always fails incrementally rather than catastrophically, that is, it usually starts to stretch and split vertically at the rear of the breechblock mortise and there is no actual 'blowup' as such. This failure may occur at one firing or be spread out over several, but it always begins at the upper rear mortise edges and progresses downwards until the action literally falls apart. The CL of thrust is above the top of the receiver's recoil shoulders and the block also applies increased leverage at this area, and this is the weak point of the action. The failure mode of other rifles is often different and this will affect the successful use of a particular cartridge in one action but not the other.

Some walls with the small shank are known to have bulged chambers when the older barrels were rebored/rechambered for a high-pressure cartridge, but this is not usually a problem with any modern barrel.

I understand the $ motivation to use the less-expensive action, but please be advised that many many folks have blown their low walls in half, but I've never heard of a high wall coming apart. John Buhmiller tried and tried to blow one up but never succeeded.
Good luck, Joe

Flatlander, 

     Not to put TOO fine a point on it...watch those pressures with smokeless very carefully.  As JD so aptly stated, damage is incremental, but I would add that the shape and duration of the pressure curve is significant as well.  That's why people get away with monstrously big cases like .45-100s in Ballards and others in BPCS, for instance.

    You may find that the lever operates very easily as the block gets a little looser in its cut...and then you may notice that the block has a little rattle front to back...and you will know that your receiver has stretched somewhere and that its integrity is now gone.  I'm not saying I wouldn't ever shoot this combination of caliber and receiver with a rifle I built and knew the history for, but I would be VERY conservative.  JMHO and it is worth at least what you paid for it, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it!

Regards and best of luck,
Green Frog

Hello fellows,

I am just a bit late getting into this discussion, but felt that this information might be helpful in the future (the follwing information is taken from my revised rough draft reference book);

Low-wall frame variations;

     The low-wall frame was made in three distinctly different variations, with the Second Variation being the most common by a wide margin. The following paragraphs provide a brief physical description of the three low-wall frame variations, and the approximate serial number and production timeframe of each; 

First Variation:  

               It features a frame with milled sides (paneled) just like the vast majority of the high-walls, and it has a full height breech block that is not scalloped (contour milled) to match the upper frame.  It will always be found with a flat-spring action. Essentially, it is a high-wall with the rear portion of the frame (behind the breech block) milled down.  Both The upper and lower tangs are is dimensionally identical to the high-wall.  The only notable difference is the frame ring, which is threaded for the standard .825” small shank barrel. It could be threaded for a large shank (.935”) barrel if special ordered with a No. 3 barrel, but it is very rarely encountered.  The First Variation low-walls were made with a No. 1 barrel as standard, with a No. 2 barrel available as a special order option.  The top of the frame ring is most often found with a milled longitudinal groove that was incorporated to allow for a better sight picture when a No. 1 barrel was installed.  When a No. 2 barrel was special ordered, the longitudinal groove was omitted. The serial number range for the First Variation low-wall is from circa 2250 to circa 17,500 (early 1886 to late 1887).  Because it is simply a milled down high-wall frame, the removable lower tang, stocks, and all other parts are interchangeable. 

Second variation:  

               It features a flat-sided frame with a scalloped (contoured milled) breech block to match the upper frame.  In order to make the Second Variation low-wall frame trimmer and to lighten the overall weight, Winchester eliminated the flared sections of the frame, and milled (scalloped) the top of the breech block to match the contour of the frame.  This resulted in the front and rear section of the frame being considerably thinner than the First Variation frame, and it also gave it a much sleeker look.  The frame ring was threaded for the .825” small shank barrel only, and the No. 1 barrel was standard. As with the First Variation, the frame ring is milled with a longitudinal groove when a No. 1 barrel is present, and the groove was omitted when a No. 2 barrel was special ordered. The flat-spring action was used exclusively until 1908, then intermittently until being completely phased out by the coil-spring action in early 1909. Shortly after the coil-spring was introduced in 1908, Takedown frames were offered. The serial number range for the Second Variation is from circa 16,500 to circa 125,000 (mid 1887 to January 1918).  The lower tang is not interchangeable with the high-wall, or with the First and Third Variation low-wall frames.  Many other parts will not interchange. 

Third variation:  

               Found on the coil-spring action Model 87 Winder Muskets only. It has the exact same style milled sides as the First Variation low-wall frame, but with a scalloped (contour milled) breech block.  The most unique feature of this variation is that they were all threaded for the large shank (.935”) barrel.  The top of the frame ring was never made with the milled longitudinal groove. This third and final low-wall variation was simply a high-wall frame that was milled down, and other than the breech block, it is identical to the Second Model high-wall Winder Musket. All parts including the lower tang are interchangeable with a coil-spring action high-wall.  The serial number range is from circa 119,100 to 139735 (end of production). It was never available as a Takedown. end quote

Now, in reference to the question about the strength of the low-wall frame, it really depends upon which variation you have, and when it was made (the steel alloy was improved in the later made frames).

From a strength standpoint, it is my belief that the Third variation Model 87 Winder musket frames are the strongest, followed by the early First variation frames (high-wall frame milled to low-wall dimension), and finally the Second variation (with the early specimens being the weakest).

I own a modifed Model 87 Winder that was rechambered to 22 K-Hornet more than 30 years ago, and I have fired a few thousand rounds through it with nary a problem .  

I also have a picture of a Second variation low-wall frame that cracked due to shooting it with hot loaded 44 W.C.F.  handloads (not my rifle thankfully). The frame was recase color hardened before it was barreled with an original No. 1 barrel chambered for 44 W.C.F., and it cracked after less than a half-box of shells .  If anyone is interested, here it is... (it has an identical crack on the opposite side of the frame).

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

OK, inquiring minds want to know...do we see any flare sided take-down low-walls, or are all of the low-walls so equipped made in the smooth side configuration?  I've only seen a couple of L-W/T-Ds "in the flesh" so I am a little shaky on this point!   

TIA, Froggie

Green_Frog wrote on Jan 16^th, 2007 at 3:47pm:


Hello Froggie,

Nope, no flare sided low-wall takedowns. I have seen (and handled) at least two-dozen TD L/Ws, and every single one of them was a Second variation. The First variation L/Ws were much too early, and the Third variation L/Ws were all Model 87 Winder Muskets.

Bert