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

Quote:


Low-wall Schuetzens are almost as rare as Hens teeth... I have only seen two of them, one of them is owned by Gary Quinlan, and the other I had my hands on at the 2003 Las Vegas winter show. The latter was chambered for 32-40, and has a 30" No. 3 octagon barrel on it. It had a really high serial number, and was made using an undrilled & tapped Model 87 Winder Musket frame. Neither was a Takedown, and I very much doubt (at least right now) that any where made using the larger "flared-side" frame. If one does surface, the owner could easily claim it to be a "one-of-a-kind".

Bert

Thanks Bert,
I was equally ignorant since I just 'assumed' that since the tang was smaller, then it was the same size as the later model. I no longer possess any of the earlier examples and so I'm grateful to you for providing the dimensions.

This dimensional difference is the primary reason that I'm inclined to accept the premise that the Winders are slightly stronger than the early paneled receivers. Really no way to prove that without actual blow-up tests, and the only action I'm prepared to sacrifice on the altar of curiousity is a flat-side one. So.............
Regards, Joe

GOD and I love winchester walls..

..ttfn..grampa..

PS.. sometimes the green frog does to. but my illigitamit grandson back slides

Green_Frog wrote on Jan 17^th, 2007 at 10:45pm:



So, the missing metal is from the outside of the tang, and so making the wrist thinner?

Glenn

The 2nd model (flat-side) low walls have the bottom of the tang & frame cut down (up) slightly, from the outside. The tang, block, lever, trigger, tang screw and extractor are all shortened to match. The differences are not all that apparent on some of those parts but they exist nevertheless. The block from either a 1st or 3rd model (paneled) low wall, when used in a 2nd model (flat-side), will extend out of the bottom of the frame slightly. Wood from a 2nd model low wall will fit on a high wall but will be scant on both top & bottom. High wall wood will fit on a flat-side low wall but will stand proud of the metal top & bottom. Damaged high wall wood can sometimes be cut down for a low wall and thereby find a use for an otherwise unwanted piece.

The walls are like the ubiquitous small-block Chevy engine. Most everything will physically interchange & operate, but some combinations work much better than others.
HTH, Joe

I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR OPINIONS ON MY LOW WALL,ESPECIALLY FROM BERT THE WINCHESTER EXPERT.
I HAVE A WIN.LOW WALL WITH AN 838XX #,ORIGINALLY IN 32-20.
IT NOW HAS ANOTHER BARREL THE SAME SPECS AS THE ORIGINAL CHAMBERED IN 30-30 WESSON.
MY QUESTION IS DO YOU THINK THIS CHAMBERING IS TOO MUCH FOR THIS VINTAGE? I WAS TOLD MANUFACTURE WAS LATE 1888.THANKS WES

Bert, 

The 30-30 Wesson is what you would have if you tapered a .357 Maximum case down to .30 caliber.  The dimensions are all but identical.

Glenn

Quote:


Thanks Glenn... strangely, I had never heard of it before this topic came up.

Wes,

Because the 30-30 Wesson is an 1880s era cartridge, if you load it to original specifications, it should not be a problem in your low-wall. I will assume that it is a relatively low-pressure cartridge, since it was chambered in the Frank Wesson single-shot rifles. Your low-wall is considerably stronger than any of the Frank Wesson rifles.

Bert

Ditto to what Glen and Bert said, with one modification.  I would contend that the Wesson #1 Long Range action and its equally rare variants is stronger than the low-wall, and probably on a par with the high-wall.  It is exceedingly rare in the original, but is getting more available by the day in the Steve Earle recreation.  That is one strong action!  

Back to your original question, if you are determined to use a .30 cal bullet, why not use the smaller bore T-C version of .32-20 in your low-wall?  You obviously aren't looking for a powerhouse round to use in it.  If you are going strictly black powder, the .30-30 Wesson would probably be fine in your low-wall, but when the next guy to shoot it stuffs the case full of 4227, the results will be exciting to say the least!  

Regards,
Froggie

Here is my Lo Wall 30-30 Wesson.

Wesleyb;
  So far I have only loaded Black (Swiss 3f) but was thinking of trying smokeless. This thread has convinced me to forget the smokeless and continue to enjoy the black that  I have been using. At least I know the action will not be stressed this way. Would be a shame to hurt it.

FLATLANDER,THE GENTLMAN THAT I BOUGHT MY LOW WALL FROM HAD DIES AND 175 FORMED CASES WITH IT.A LITTLE OVER 100 WERE LOADED WITH 2 TYPES OF BULLETS.
1ST WAS 160 GRN RNFP WITH 12 GRNS OF 4227,
2ND WAS 125 GRN JACKETED SOFT POINTS WITH 12.9 GRNS OF 4227.
I WAS TOLD THAT HE HAD FIRED SEVERAL HUNDRED ROUNDS PREVIOUSLY.
AFTER READING THIS THREAD I LOOKED FOR STRESSMARKS ON THE RECIEVER AROUND THE BACK OF THE BREECH BLOCK AND I CAN'T FIND ANYTHING,AND THE BLOCK IS STILL TIGHT.DOES THIS LOAD SOUND TOO HOT ANYONE?IF SO,WHAT LOADS WOULD BE RECOMENDED?WES

I'VE NEVER LOADED WITH BLACK POWDER.ARE THERE ANY DIFFERENCES IN LOADING PROCEEDURES?CAN YOU USE GOEX BLACK POWDER SUBTITUTE? WHERE DO YOU GET LOAD DATA?I HAVE SOME GOEX PINACLE FFG BLACK POWDER SUBTITUTE THAT I USE IN MY MUZZLE LOADER.WES

I HAVE THE LYMAN CAST BULLET MANUAL AND IT HAS LOTS OF LOADS BUT NONE FOR THE 30-40 WESSON. THE ONLY LOAD DATA THAT I HAVE CAME WITH THE RIFLE, AND I CAN'T FIND ANY OTHERS. I HAVE LOOKED TO FIND DIFFERENT LOADS BUT CAN HARDLY FIND ANYTHING MENTIONED ON IT.WHAT MANUAL WOULD YOU RECOMMEND? DOES ANYONE KNOW OF A SOURCE FOR ADDITIONAL DATA FOR THE 30-40 WESSON?ITS REALLY CLOSE TO THE 30-30 WESSON.THANKS WES

THANKS FOR THE HELP,WES

Ed, you have what appears to be an all original and correct Winchester Hiwall Winder Musket. It is equipped with a Krag rear sight, some but not all were ordered with this sight. Most had a Reciever sight that was mounted ob the flat side of the action and held in place with four screws. One thing out of the way is what appears to be a Palm Rest Base hanging out of the Forend just ahead of the reciever. This is not normally seen on Winder Muskets. Winchester however would build just about anything the customer wanted as long as it was safe. If that is an original Winchester Palm rest base inletted into the forend you have a rare oddity. It would be an interesting variation and would create a little more value if it looked on close examination to be a Factory installation. HTH,Regards, FITZ

Ed,   

     I have to slightly disagree with my friend FITZ on the sight.  That Krag sight was almost completely the standard sight for the second (high-wall) musket...the Lyman-made receiver sight that requires 4 holes in the receiver side wall was only found on the third model or low-wall version of the musket, IIRC.  I DO agree that whatever is hanging down from the fore end right in front of the lever is very unusual.  Maybe a closer picture of that, shot from the bottom, would be of help identifying it.

     BTW, looking at the general shape of the fore end and the single, clip-retained barrel band, I'm guessing that is a coil spring action, right?  Just as a matter of curiosity, does the receiver have a Winchester proof marking stamped on top over the chamber?  I've seen them with and without this mark.  The web sling is a nice touch, and if original is a seldom seen accessory for this model.  Thanks for posting!

Froggie

Bulletin: old Winchester sling hardware looked much like this. Joe

My rifle doesn't have a stud in the forearm, sorry.
I didn't put a picture of my rifle because I have it set up with a vernier ladder rear and a globe front at this time.
The plan was to use it to practice offhand BPRC 22 Silhouette shooting. 
I found this picture on a Brit site while trying to confirm the type of rifle I have.
I always thought  that it was a " Highwall action" chambered to 22 LR and was called an NRA Winder Musket. 
After reading the articles in this thread and hearing rumors of Winchester not heat treating some 22 high-walls,
as they did the regular models I was concerned about the strength of my 22.  In the back of my mind at one time I thought of having it re-barrelled to 45/90 or something similar.

I am surprised at the low price of many originals as compared to repro's. I have a Win 73 in nice condition that probably wouldn't fetch 3/4 the price of a repro 73.

Thanks and sorry or the undue excitement.
The picture was borrowed from a UK site.

Ed Malinowski

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
This is the sight and thanks for the info.

My serial # 119060
"A" behind screw.
WP in circle on receiver.
WP in circle on barrel.

Thanks again.
Ed Malinowski

Hi,
I'm new to this forum and this is my first post.  I have a Low Wall in 32L RF and would like to reline/rebore to a better cartridge(collector value is minimal). It is a 2nd Model with a # 2 barrel and 1st Model CF block. I was planning on converting it to 32-40 until I discovered this forum discussing Low Wall strengths. In Madis's Winchester Book there are two Low Walls in 32-40 pictured so Winchester did produce them. I think that the key to going to 32-40 in smokeless is to shoot low velosity (1400fps is what most of the CA loads appear to be) loads that are similar to FL BP. Let me state that I'm not a reloader or a gun technician  I rely on picking up amunition for my collection of old Winchesters, Marlins and Colts from commercial loaders like Ten-X. etc. I hope to get into reloading down the road. Is 32-40 even in low velocity still chancy?
Thanks,  t hawk

T hawk, 

We have some shooter's in the northwest who use the low wall chambered in 32/20.  This works out better with the small barrel shank.

They use 30 cal barrels with 10 inch twist to shoot the heavy bullets. 

This combination works out well. One shooter has been using his since I moved here in 88.    

As with any other shell the 32/20 can be double charged. 

I have a low wall in 32/40 that has had thousands of rounds of smokeless through it with no problems. 

If I do , ever rebarrel it, it will be a smaller shell. 25/20SS or 32/20.

I like the low wall better than the hi wall for match shooting only because of better access to the chamber.  

                                                                              Joe.

Quote:


Hello Joe,

I am fully aware that almost all Model 1885 parts can be installed into any frame type (if you do not mind grossly ill-fitting parts).

I suppose that I did not properly phrase my question... What I was trying to ask, is how did he get a centerfire breech block to function properly in a rimfire rifle. T hawk stated that his rifle is a 32 Long rimfire  and it has a centerfire breech block installed in it. There is a a very important functional difference between a rimfire and a centerfire breech block... the location of the firing pin hole. Specifically, if you put a centerfire breech block and firing pin in a low-wall chambered for 32 Long RF, the firing pin will smack the cartridge dead center instead of on the rim... this is why I asked my original question.

Bert

Just to clear up a possible misunderstandng and mavbe an argument, my Low  Wall in 32Long RF came with both RF and CF falling blocks and I'm shooting 32Long Colt(not much better than the Long RF) with the CF block.  I think that I'm going to abandon the 32-40 effort and either rechamber in 32-20(I already have another LW in 32-20) or relign/rebore in 25-20WCF or 22Hornet(although I would think that the Hornet would be a bit too powerful also). 
I also have a HW in 42-80 that I would love to put an antique scope on. Does anyone know of a source for old rifle scopes and mounts?

Thanks for all of your inputs,
t hawk

Quote:


That cleared it up and answered my question. Either the 25-20 WCF or the 22 Hornet would work in your low-wall with a fresh liner.

Bert

If the 32 Rimfire you are referring to is the Navy Arms stuff from South America, don't bother!  About half of it goes off and the other half isn't worth ..., even as plinking ammo.  I purchased five boxes directly from them 10 or 15 years ago when it was new, and I doubt it has improved with age.  The last decent 32 Rimfire I had was some Canadian ammunition that you used see occasionally at gun shows.  I have not seen any in quite some time.

As you could probably tell from the tone of my previous post, I am still angry about the Navy Arms 32 Rimfire ammunition years later.  I have never before or since had NEW commercial ammo fail to fire.  Although I don't buy much factory ammo, I have consumed fair amounts of surplus Scandanavian stuff of various types that was 50 years old or more.  It is quite reliable!

When I was a small boy in the 1950's I remember watching a man shoot an 1870's or 80's Mauser at the range one day.  He was taking original period ammo out of metal lined boxes, wiping the green mold off it on the edge of the bench and shooting it.  It went off!