So reading past posts it seems members of this forum are against having an older low wall chambered in 40-65. Doing some reading it seems there ate two diameters of barrel shanks. Some think the thicker shank might be alright. Others state low wall just isn't safe because there is not enough meat behind the block. My book on rifle actions state that the actions are good to about 40,000 cup. The 40-65 doesn't approach this pressure at least in black powder. So am I missing something? Have my numbers wrong?

A number of people I've spoken with are under the assumption that a new barrel, with modern metallurgy, somehow fixes all these older guns with a weaker action design. The barrel metallurgy may be better, or the thread diameter may be larger, but it still doesn't change the design of the gun.

We have a shooter who lets his 15yr-old daughter shoot a Low Wall in 38-55. I always stay away and wonder what he will think if it comes apart in his daughter's face. Something they would both carry with them the rest of their lives.

I don't understand the thing about the lowall win. I have an Aydt rifle chambered in 38-55. Weak action with absolutely nothing supporting the rear of the breech block. Never any mention of other weak actions, just the poor picked on lowall. I think it's sort of politically correct. And posters like that little feather in their cap. 

           Joe.

MVA has actions for sale. Got to drool over two at Butte a couple weeks ago. One was a plain single trigger. The other was a double set. 

             Joe.

Let me add this, regarding the LW. 

1. If it's the 40/65 Win. and the small shank LW, you only have a wall thickness of .140, not much in my book but, 44 mag, revolvers have a simlar wall thickness.

2. Watch your brass for head seperation. If the breech block flexes, the case will stretch and the head will seperate. The flexing of the block can cause a crack, in the mortice. If that happens, I personally wouldn't shoot it and would rebarrel in a smaller caliber.

I have a LW, cambered in 357 Max. I don't run Max pressures but, I have run it at close to 40,000 PSI, with both fixed and BSed, w/o problems. I did at least a 100 rounds at those kind of pressures but most of my shooting have been in the <30k psi range. It was a 357 Mag, when I got it and I do not know how many rounds went throught before I got it. ALSO, it's a original, re-bored, #2, octagon, 32 Long, Win barrel. Scary huh?

Basic bolt thrust with my Max @ 40K = 4400 psi, @ 30k = 3300 psi. 40/65 @ 20k = 3900 psi.


Frank

I think the question of "why a Low wall" is simply answered. Because they're plentiful, and always much cheaper than a High Wall. Same reason many people choose a cast frame Ballard to build a .32-40 or .38-55 rifle. They're plentiful, and cheaper. 
I personally think you can get away with it on a Low wall, or a cast frame Ballard, but still wonder when or if it will decide to give at some point. I know a couple shooters who've shot a cast frame Ballard in a rifle cartridge for years, and think all the warnings are silly. So far they've proven my concern to be unfounded.

Friend took off the tip of his thumb when he burst the barrel of his new Shiloh Sharps. He now has eight fingers and two and seven eighths thumbs. 

          Joe.

He was all thumbs.

       Joe

Joe, 2 7/8's that means he still has 7/8's of a thumb to play with and still have all 10 digits the rest of us have.  All kidding aside I always worry that the next owner might want to take my old rifle on an elephant hunt and load it up to the max with ball powder and jacketed bullets and where will that leave him after the dust settles?  This coming from a man who hunts with a rolling block in 250 Savage that I know could be easily overloaded.

Why would chambering a low wall in 40-65 be any different than chambering a low wall in 45-70? The back-thrust should be the same and the wall thickness, at the base, should be the same.

??

I've never seen a low wall in 45-70. Also, the modern metallurgy, etc., argument may be sound with the barrel, but the receiver is still soft steel case hardened, so no appreciable difference with the action (that is, modern vs. antique), yes?

I agree with the observation that most SS blowups are the barrel cracking in hoop stress and blowing out the barrel mounting section and more. I'm not as experienced as 90% of this board, but I don't recall a bolt blowup, just a barrel K-Boom.

Look you can chamber a low wall for anything you want just don't shoot it next to anyone else especially me. Your free to blow yourself up just try not to take innocent shooters with you in the blast.

40 Rod

While most people think it's dangerous to shoot a 40/65 in a LW, they think nothing of shooting the 38/40 or 44/40 in one and there is only .034 difference in case heads, between the two cartridges. Using modern steel barrels, the CASE HEAD is the limiting factor, it's what generates the thrust on the BB. You can double charge any case, no matter what pressure it's designed for and you can shoot low enough pressures on the even HV cartridges to be safe. Remember that the 44/40 had a HV loading and someone could use that load data.

My own personal thoughts on the LW is that I would limit it to the the 32/40 case head size and mark it for 32/40 or 38/55 BP only with a modern steel barrel and NOT one made of 12L14 or 1137-44. I personally saw one of those come apart with a double charge in a cast, 32/40 Ballard. 

I think that my application of up to 30k pressures on the 357 Mag/Max case is safe (Frank Dehaas thought 42K with the 357 Mag was safe) and mark it 38XL for future owners. The 25/20ss would be even safer and could be shot at any velocity that a 120 gr, PB bullet could be shot.

I would also, inspect the mortice and breech block, before re-barreling. Maybe even Magnaflux the action.

Frank

Thanks for the reply Frank.  Well, low-pressure load data it is for me and the 44-40 then.

If I want to sling pistol bullets downrange at relatively high speeds from a rifle, the Lyman 410459 Keith bullet over 10 grains of Unique is a fun load from my 40-65 C. Sharps High Wall.

I am cautious not to double charge cases.  I load in blocks and and after the block's cases are full, I use one of the little LED flashlights to look down into the case at an angle. By looking at an angle, I am not relying solely on depth perception to check the charge, but looking at where the top of the powder column intersects the case wall in a row of cases.

Every once in a while I intentionally throw a double charge in a case just to see what one looks like.

I'll feel OK running the 25-20 a little hotter, but well on the safe side.

Thanks again for the advice,

LTC B wrote on Dec 29^th, 2015 at 2:26pm:


I didn't see anyone flat out saying the .40-65 was safe either. There was mention of .40-65 BP loads, and being safe in a LW with certain restrictions.
In my opinion, if a particular action was chambered by the manufacturer, and survived over 100 years, then it's proven to be safe enough. If we start chambering them in different calibers, with caveats added to the cartridge/gun combination, then I question the chambering of the cartridge.
I suppose we could do a Ruger warning on the barrel, so any owner forever would have the limitations engraved there for his notification.

BP wrote on Dec 29^th, 2015 at 7:55pm:


No, not me, I'm just a caretaker. I'm expected to pass them on in good shape!

BTW, my comments above notwithstanding about the prudence of a 40-65 in a LW, MY 40-65 is built on a High Wall. 

Besides, You folks have schooled me on the relative strengths of the Ballard and the Low Wall. I'm convinced by the "don't do it" opinions.

Glad to be here and learning.

I agree that we need to assume that the next person might do something stupid. But I'm sure not going to do something to enable him. But there are numerous examples of the various factories 100+ years ago that tried things and then discontinued them later. A good example are the Ballard #2 that were built in both .44-40 and .44 Long. They are fairly uncommon today simply because Marlin decided the cartridges were too much for the cast frame. But I've never heard of one blowing up, or shooting loose. I've owned 3 in .44-40, and still own one in .44 Extra Long, and all were/are tight.
Stevens also offered the 44 in both .38-55, .32-40, and several other calibers, that they dropped later. I have seen all of those with loose pins, but never seen or heard of one blowing up.
I doubt most people today would buy an original Ballard or Stevens in these calibers, and feel they should rebarrel them to smaller cartridges, just because some dolt will overload them after they move them along later.

frnkeore wrote on Dec 30^th, 2015 at 11:03am:


Hope you're the owner rather than the "caretaker", Frank. 

This talk about caretakers and what will happen after we sell a rifle or pass on reminds me of teenage girl talk. 

I own my rifles and I don't loose any sleep over who has them after I'm gone. 

Same as when I sell a car or motorcycle.  Nothing but negative thinking. 

               Joe. 

Like Vall said, I paid good money for them and own them - they're mine.  I don't see the caretaker point of view as some namby-pamby politically correct tripe, but as a way of looking at certain historical pieces of my collection that were made before my parents were born, and hopefully, through careful use and proper preservation, will continue to be shootable and collectible long after I'm gone.  It's like a reminder to myself not to treat them casually and carelessly, even though they are mine right now.

I like your approach.

jy3855 wrote on Dec 31^st, 2015 at 9:33pm:


What? Where did that come from?  A bit extreme, don't you think?   

Do you really feel you might destroy antiquities??   


       Joe. 

westerner wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:18am:


I agree, the example is an exaggeration, but they're not making some of these guns anymore.  It would be nice to pass them on so that they can be enjoyed anew.  As much as I enjoy owning and shooting old rifles, I would like them to be enjoyed as long as possible.

We have been down the road on cartridges for a Low-wall action.
de Haas states it is adequate for the .357 Mag. cartridge, which seems high, but shows examples.
FrankOre suggests something below 32-40/38-55 class cartridges which is more reasonable.
All are higher than what the factory did, but have been used without damage to body parts.

The attached chart uses SAAMI Cartridge Base Diameter and Maximum Average Pressure to determine and compare the cartridge thrust for cartridges that might be used in a Low-Wall.
Nothing new, just shown differently.
Chuck 

Chart modified based on Frank's comments.

Chuck,
Would loading the 25-20 WCF to 1680 fps and a 120 gr bullet move it to another curve out?  Bob

westerner wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 1:18pm:


Without any details of this incident, the mention of it means absolutely nothing. What led to your friend bursting his new Shiloh Sharps barrel?   

Schuetzenmiester wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 7:49pm:


Thanks for the response. This type result ending in a burst barrel could happen in any modern firearm constructed of the best steels, and not firearm or design specific i.e. Shiloh Sharps. By the way, what caliber was it?

He had shot BP, was in a hurry to try smokeless, washed the brass, put it in the oven to dry it fast.  He didn't get it all dry.   

He got to shooting the breeze during cease fire and forgot the last shot had been a squib and there was a bullet about half way down the barrel.

Perhaps the factory decided that the 32-40 was not a good idea after doing some ie they realized it was a mistake. The major problem with the Low Wall is the block is not supported above the center line of the bore. The thrust from the breach block is placed on the top of the rear of the frame. I have seen many low walls with cracks at that point.
Cheers,
Laurie

(Quote Frankore)
"My suggestion was for 32/40, 38/55 BP pressures, in the 20k - 24k range as a max pressure and 30k for the 357 case head as a safe range in the LW."

Frank,
Misunderstood or maybe just assumed. Sorry for the misquote. Chart has been modified.
 
(Quote Old-Win)
"Would loading the 25-20 WCF to 1680 fps and a 120 gr bullet move it to another curve out?  Bob"
 
Bob,
Don't know. Can only read tables. Guessing somewhere  near the .218 Bee.
Chuck

While I agree that a 32-40 is on the raggedy edge of safety a 32-40 is not a 40-65. The 40-65 uses a lot more powder and produces a lot more recoil than a 32-40. There has to be a more appropriate action to shoot a 40-65 than a Winchester Low Wall. This seems like I have this low wall action and I want a 40-65 so lets put my self and everybody near me in danger because I’m too laze to look for a proper action.

40 Rod

But I think there is a shooter or shooters that have been using one for a long time. For silhouettes.   

Can't sell it?   

         Joe. 

Marlinguy,
I asked Bert Hartman over on the Winchester Collectors website about 32-40 chamberings.  He's been studying the records for a long time and this is what he posted.  Maybe we can put all those 32-40 rumors to rest now.  Bob

In my search of the records, I have not confirmed a single low-wall made in 32-40. Winchester stated in their very early catalogs that they would not make them in that caliber. In my travels, I have seen three low-walls in 32-40, with two of them being obvious fakes (they lettered in a different cartridge). The only Model 1885 "low-wall" I have found that might be original in 32-40 is a very late production Schuetzen with a third variation low-wall frame. It looked correct, but there is no way to say with 100% certainty.

Bert

In another section there is a thread about people blowing up Sharps repros with 40-65 loads of 5744 and wads. How long do you think it’s going to be before someone who has built a 40-65 on a low wall is foolish enough to load it with 5744 and a wad down on the powder? Will you be next to him or her when it finally lets go? It’s not about how many times you get away with foolishness its about the one time that you don’t. 

40 Rod

Parts gun?
That's what it would be for me.

I vote no for the obvious reasons previously stated. Why fool with a substandard action when there are plenty of rifles on the market chambered for the round that will handle modern high pressure loads. Being cheap with firearms can be very costly

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

I didn't read any claims that it's original. Obvious that it's not.  I wouldn't be afraid to use it, with a bag over my head. 5500.00 bucks? What a deal!   

          Joe. 

westerner wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 11:44pm:

Who's that guy with the bag over his head, dad?
That's the Unknown Shooter, son.