How would you compare the 1887 Farrow to the 1885 high wall for a Schuetzen action?

Dakota Arms at one time was going to make a Farrow rifle - and the had a picture of one on their web site - have not visited it in awhile - don't know its status - but I am sure the the waiting time is long and the price high - but if that is what u want then it is worth the time and money - u all have a great day now - the rimfire - cdpersons

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

PS - I held the model F at the NRA annual show in Pittsburg a couple of years ago - it can make u drool - looks good - feels good

Like you, Quarter_Bore, I've never seen or even heard of an original Farrow with set triggers or even an SST. The new Miller F claims to be offered with a DST and its photos show a rearward-facing one like the infamously-unreliable Borchardt factory model. The new F action shows a slight difference in the receiver profile but appears otherwise visually very true to the original Farrow. The prices shown were quite breathtaking, but then I hafta remember that it's Dakota....(boo, hiss)

Until quite recently I had Squire Pickett's original Farrow 32-40 in my shop, and had ample opportunity to closely examine it. The action weighs less than the Winchester and the hammer strike is less jarring, also the trigger geometry is much better than the high wall making for a crisper letoff.

This particular rifle had the half-cock disabled and the hammer adjusted to rebound slightly, which would be a problem with anything but a very low-pressure load. I had to make a new firing pin since the original one was poorly-shaped (probably replaced) and would stick forward if dry-fired on an empty chamber. The Farrow breech block is so thin front-to-back that there's no room for any FP retraction device, and IMO this is a major design shortcoming of the original.

The original C-shaped mainspring is quite heavy, and the exact shape of it is quite critical, so that even a few thousandths of an inch is crucial and any dimensional differences in a replacement spring will mean problems. I can attest to this from personal experience and I don't wanta talk about it, just take my word. IMO this is unacceptable and the action needs a coil mainspring to be usable as a serious target rifle.

I would consider building a Farrow kit but would use a coil mainspring and convert to drawbolt attachment, for sure. I would not, under any circumstances, consider buying one from Dakota. The lack of a set trigger may be a disadvantage for many Schuetzen shooters but it's a proven fact that use of a set trigger from the bench results in larger groups, by anywhere from 8% to 16% in carefully measured and repeated testing in a variety of RF and CF rifles. So the set trigger issue is a moot point with me, one can be easily added to a kit if wanted.

The Farrow isn't nearly as strong as the high wall but is much stronger than the low wall. It would be suitable for low-pressure loads only, IMO.
Good luck, Joe

I have seen a Farrow with the push-pull double set triggers at least on the one that I saw the triggers worked well. Thats more than I can say for the triggers on the Miller F I handled at The NRA show in Pittsburgh those triggers wouldnt work at all.

40 Rod