Last week, I inherited my grandfather's 1889 vintage 1885 low wall that appears to use a 45-70. I say "appears" because my uncle confessed that about 10 years ago he sanded the rifling with a rotary sanding drum on a dentist drill--so no rifling remains. However, a 45-70 cartridge seems to fit the chamber perfectly. The rifle was born as a 32 WCF but the original barrel had been replaced.

I love to hunt and want to restore the rifle to hunt deer with it. And when I die, I'd like to will it to my grandson so he will have the rifle that his great-great grandfather used. He also loves rifles as much as me. This means that I need to re-barrel the rifle. Here in Missouri I can expect a 100 yard shot on average, and sometimes up to 150 yards. Who knows where my grandson will settle as an adult, so I'd like to restore the gun to something that shoots fairly well out to about 150 yards. 

Since the chamber pressure for a 45-70 is somewhere around 32,000 CIP, I assumed that a 45-70 is too hot for a low wall  receiver. Most of the recommendations I've read about a low wall indicate that I should re-barrel to a caliber that keeps the pressures below 28,000, and some even say below 24,000. However, a local gunsmith notes that the 45-70 cartridge is straight-shanked and therefore exerts a lot of the pressure on the chamber walls instead of pushing back against the falling block. He warned me about using any high pressure cartridge that tapers, saying that the block may not last over the years if a high pressure cartridge pushes primarily against the block. He said that I could use black powder if I'm still concerned about the pressure.

A second option is to re-barrel for a 45-60 (28,000 CIP), or maybe even a 40-82 (24,000 CIP) This would mean hand-loading all rounds. I don't mind that, but it could be a nuisance for my grandson when the time comes for him to inherit it. I think the 40-82 may use a tapered cartridge, so maybe the 45-60 would be easier on the receiver than the 45-70 or the 40-82 over the long haul?

A third option is to mark the barrel for black powder only. I'm an avid flintlock shooter so my grandson will inherit my other black powder guns anyway. He loves my flintlock, so I expect that he'll be OK with using a black powder rifle. 

This will certainly end up as the most expensive "gift" that I've ever received--expensive FOR me, that is. So I appreciate your insights and guidance.

Your grandfather/uncle must have been thinking of using it for .45-70 shot cartridges.  I've seen another instance of a .45-70 smoothbore barrel on a weak action.  The Government had shot cartridges made for troops to forage for food with in  the days of the Trapdoor.   

I'm in total agreement with Frank.   Smaller cartridges, even at BP pressure.   Like the BP .357 Max idea.   

There's a caution about Max reamers - SAAMI reamers don't cut a very good chamber in a rifle.  Read Mike Bellm's various screeds on the subject.  I had a proper reamer made for me by Dave Manson.  Bellm does chambering for T/C Contenders with a similar one.   

Max brass has been scarce, but just today I got an email from Bellm in which he mentions that he has a new source opening up.

Well, I suspected all along that hoping for a 150 yard deer gun from a LW was probably expecting too much. However, I have also wondered about getting it re-barreled for a 38-55 marked for black powder only?

Regardless, I am also intrigued with the idea of re-barreling it for a 357 mag. I guess that I could re-barrel it or get the existing barrel relined. The existing octagon barrel is fairly beat up, but so is the rest of the rifle. As a 357, should I get a new barrel or get the existing one relined? No matter what, the collector value is 0.

None of the modern high pressure varmint rounds would be suitable for a LW action. They're just too much for that great old action.

What people are trying to say is: An original Low-Wall just won't take high pressure cartridges or even larger cartridges at lower pressures.
It will crack the receiver at the right rear corner of the breech block opening.
Just not a long range action. About the best varmint cartridge for it would be a .25-20.
Chuck

May I suggest the good ol' .38 Spl. ? It'd be fun for the youngster, and cheap to shoot as well. Not likely a magnum round will ever enter it to threaten his well being. I had one in .32-20 and it was pleasant to shoot as well, but not as cheap to feed as the .38 would be.
When the time comes, get him a deer rifle- till then just have a good time with a neat ol' shooter he can affford to shoot a lot.

Oh, get a 14 twist liner if possible, so the 38 can if desired be loaded with up to 200 gr rifle bullets. I like the 200 gr Lyman cast bullet #358315. Shoots very well in my 13 twist.
beltfed/arnie

One of the above posts mentions an option for barreling in a 22 Hornet. That interests me. However, in another post about Low Walls, I found that John Taylor mentions, "Most have too big a firing pin to be safe with the hornet which is rated at 43,000. The hornet is good for blowing holes in the primer even in a strong action." Depending where that primer and firing pin go, I wonder if it might ruin my day. 

If I used only factory loaded 22 Hornets, would that still be a problem, or is this primarily a problem with hand loaded 22 Hornets? I think I know the answer, but as a newbie I have to ask even the dumb questions.

And if I opt to re-barrel to a 38 special, would a 38+P be OK? These may seem like dumb questions, but I need to know what I'm doing.

I know that you are right about bullet velocity being somewhat less important than accuracy and fun. My favorite rifle is a 62 cal flintlock--definitely slower than any other rifle I know, but I shoot it every chance I get because it is fun. So i know you are right. 

But I also want to avoid making a big mistake that could hurt myself or others. Some people have told me to go ahead and rebarrel to a 45-70 or 38-55. Without the input from this forum, I would have proceeded down that path. I'm very thankful for the input above that keeps me on a safer path. 

Your honest question has helped me to better understand my issue with this gun. Upon inheriting it, I expected to use it for deer hunting just like my grandfather used it. But last Tuesday I found that the barrel was ruined. I reluctantly decided to replace it but today found that the barrel is unsafe for the action even if it were in good condition. So now I'm faced with spending $300-$400 to fix a rifle that I can't use for deer hunting or varmint hunting. It's taking a while to adjust my expectations to this reality. I'm still unsure if it's worth $300+ to have a rifle that shoots 38's. But this seems like the best option if I choose to use the rifle. The real problem isn't the rifle but my expectations. I didn't expect to have to pay $300+ for a fairly beat up rifle that shoots 38's. You've posed an honest question that I need to Consider before making any more steps. THAT is also one of the benefits of a forum like this. 
Please don't take offense at my rantings. I think your insights are right on.

Joe, if it was a piece manufactured in 1889, wouldn't it be a small-thread, flat side? I don't recall if any were different. 
Some high walls had small threads, but the other way on low wall, until the later Winder version?

In my youth. well I wasn't that young but it was a long time ago, I had a low wall in 22 K-Hornet. It was a lot of fun and I never pierced a primer. Someone offered a barrel in 22 Hornet. If the barrel shank size (the part that screws into the action) is correct and the price is less than a reline or new barrel, that might be a way to go.

I'm unsure if this photo will help answer the question, but it looks pretty thin at face value. But remember that this is a 45-70 chamber.

There's a highly recommended smith about 1-1/2 hours from me who can re-barrel or reline the existing barrel. I've made an appointment to take the rifle to him next Wednesday. I'll avoid making any decisions until I get his input.

One more question before taking it to the smith:

If I ask the smith to re-bore the receiver for a large threaded barrel, would I have a few additional calibers that I could choose from?

I just finished reading a series of postings on the marlin owners forum relating to the pressures produced by a black powder 38-55 cartridge. The are saying that the pressures are about 17,000 psi max. This sounds entirely within the limit for my LW. Even a 38 special produces more than that. I would just need to get the barrel stamped "for black powder only." I use BP in my flintlock so I do not mind loading it or getting the barrel stamped for it. 

Is this a possibility for me?

Winchester only chambered Low Walls in 32-20 and 44-40.  Anything higher power got put into a high wall.  That means that Winchester thought it was unsafe to put a 32-40 on a low wall, let alone a 38-55, BP or not.  If Winchester thought it was unsafe 130 years ago you shouldn't do it today.

The low wall was made because it is a fumbly process to load a high wall with a small cartridge.  If you cut down the walls you can load a small cartridge much more easily.  You give up lots of strength but you don't need strength to shoot those small cartridges anyway.   

I have seen a few 32-40 Low Walls and even a 38-55 Low Wall (non-original of course).  They may work for a while but I am not standing next to a guy shooting one.   

40_Rod wrote on Sep 11^th, 2016 at 9:53am:


One of the horrible things about the .38-55 is that it will chamber and fire the .375 Winchester, which is a high pressure round loaded for their beefed-up Big Bore levergun.  SAAMI max pressure 55,000 psi.  Commercial loads said to be about 50,000 psi.   Just one of those will probably scatter a Low Wall from here to breakfast.  

An industrial safety variant of Murphy's Law that I've had to live by through years of designing automation is:  "If it can happen, it will happen."  No matter how the barrel is marked.  

I stated earlier that I kinda liked the idea of .357 Maximum, using only black powder.  But I'm remembering that there was hot loaded commercial Max ammo in the past, and with the resurgence of the round for use in rifles, I'm seeing quoted velocities that put the pressure up in the 50,000 range from the custom loaders.  So I retract my suggestion, and would go for .357 Magnum instead.   

Nathan,
Going to give a Cartridge Thrust 101 lecture.
Cartridge thrust is the force of the cartridge base on the breechblock.
It is determined by the cartridge pressure multiplied times the area of the cartridge base.
Cartridge thrust for the same pressure increases by the square of the diameter of the cartridge base.

The original Low-Wall is a weaker design because the receiver reaction shoulders are significantly below the center of cartridge thrust.
This causes the breech block to work like a pry bar and increases the stress on the receiver shoulders. Have you crushed wood or metal with a pry bar?
Lack of support on the lower ejector side adds to this.
The Low-Wall is a fine action for smaller base diameter, low to medium pressure cartridges, but just not designed for higher performance cartridges.
The same design with the receiver reaction shoulders above the center of cartridge thrust (High-Wall) will handle most any reasonable cartridge
Chuck

I personally prefer to keep my red blood on the inside of my skin, and have my mind directed to keeping it that way.
    

I decided to compare the pressure on the block of a 38 special (22000 psi) to the block pressure of a 38-55 using black powder (17000 psi). I'm unsure of the actual butt area of a 38 special cartridge or a 38-55 cartridge, but my calculations are based on the 38 special being .357 while the 38-55 is .380.  Although the butt of the 38-55 cartridge certainly has more area than 38 special, I was surprised to see that the 38 special pressure on the block is about 10% higher than the 38-55 black powder cartridge (Pi X (.5 X radius squared) X psi).

So, if my numbers are right, it SEEMS that a 38-55 black powder cartridge will not overpower the receiver or block any more than a 38 special.  

However, I agree that we do have some responsibility to protect those who might misuse a black-powder labeled 38-55. I'm unsure how much responsibility to assume. I know that I'd probably feel horrible if my grandson put a modern round in my low wall and hurt himself. At the least I assume responsibility to properly label it, and maybe even to warn him severely if I leave it to him in my will. It's hard for me to assume responsibility for those who fail to read the "black powder only" warning. When I leave him my 62 cal black powder flintlock, I run the same risk that he could try to load a mixture of BP and modern gun powder in it. Old guns commonly used BP, and so do some modern guns labeled with a warning against using anything else.

Do I need to warn those who buy a 150 mph motorcycle that those speeds can kill them? Do I need to warn a parent to lock up their handguns? Are gun manufacturers responsible for those who misuse assault style rifles? I think our political parties are presently fighting over issues like these. 

At this point, however, I'm still looking at all the possibilities before spending $. So far, the three options seem to be 1) use a low pressure round, similar to a 38 special or smaller, 2) re-barrel for a 22 hornet, 3) re-barrel for a black powder only round, 38-55 or smaller. Of those three possibilities, I'm still more intrigued with the possibility of turning this rifle into a 22 hornet varmint rifle. But from what some are saying, I may need to ask the smith to replace the large firing pin with the small one. Even if I have him replace the large for a small firing pin, is the 22 hornet still a reasonable option?

I know it seems like I'm taking you guys all around on these issues, but I really really do appreciate your input.

Sell it for the action and get a modern bolt action. It will cost you far less. A low wall IS NOT suitable for a 38-55 or anything larger than a older pistol round. It is not suitable for a 22 Hornet either. Not suitable for any rifle round. Modern 38 Special would be pushing it limits and I would not trust it. In my opinion.  Take it for what it is worth.

I just made a table of comparisons for different calibers to compare the thrust on the 1885 block (see attachment 1 for pdf format). The ones marked *** indicate the common calibers marketed for the 1885 LW.

I was surprised to see that the 32-20, 38-40, and 44-40 all show slightly higher thrust values than the 38 special. The thrust for 38+P seems almost perfectly matched to the 24,000 psi design limit that some people recommend. 

For me, the most obvious problem shown by this table is that the 22 Hornet seems somewhat overpowered (11% higher) in comparison to the design limit. 

I suspect that a host of other factors might be just as important as the thrust load. But this table has helped me to consider ruling out the 22 Hornet for a LW.

In the table, BP indicates black powder cartridge. So the 45-70 is obviously way too powerful even in a black powder cartridge.

Nathan,
Because you are a research scientist, Google ANSI/SAAMI Z299.3 and ANSI/SAAMI Z299.4 for manufacturer's standards for pistol and rifle cartridges.
Anything else is a guess and even they disagree on copper units of pressure vs. transducer data.
For action strength, pressure alone has very little meaning unless the cartridge diameter is specified.
The thin wall brass tube cartridge has very little effect on cartridge thrust.

For barrel shank information, Google "thick wall cylinders" and find formulas to calculate stress.
Use the thread root radius or the smallest radius on the shank and the largest radius of the cartridge chamber.
Chuck 

I need to qualify my above statements, regarding the use of the loads that I have used. The 1400 fps, 208 gr loads, are breech seated loads! By that, I would reduce fixed loads by 100 fps, for simalar pressure.

Sorry, but I shoot very little fixed ammo, as is the case with most of the competive shooters on this site.

Frank

Methinks we've all been beating our heads against a wall.
Just think of the safety factor in stamping black powder only on her- that'll work for sure. Can't get safer than that!

Sort of like a research scientist that finds limited data to support the conclusion they want to reach and ignores all the other data.
That is why there is peer review.
Chuck

I f I'm not mistaken later Winchester nickel steel barrels were stamped with a circled PW on the top of the barrel just ahead of the receiver ring.
7~

It was likely re-barreled or re-bored to make a .410 shotgun out of it.
45-70 will chamber and fire a short .410 shell with a little help. Hard on the extractor.
Fairly common with Trapdoor's and other single shot actions. Much more useful around the farm.
Chuck

That VP is winchesters standard proof mark.  All nickel steel barrels are marked and they are all round.  Your barrel is not a nickel steel barrel.  This doesn't matter because the limiting factor in the low wall is not the barrel but the breech block support. 

There are two shank sizes.  Most low walls were small shank and most high walls were large shank.  Yours in an early style low wall and I can almost guarantee that it has a small shank.  You can check under the barrel just in front of the forearm for a number one or two.  Any low wall barrel you find should fit and time up pretty well but with the usual caveats of headspace, extractor cuts, etc...  


There is one exception to that.  Winder muskets were all large shank because they are high walls in every way except the lowered sides and milled breech block.  Barrels from those low walls will not fit your rifle.  They are round, 28 inches long, have a heavy taper, and are usually chambered in 22 short or 22 lr.  They are all over the web and they are no use to you.  

I hope my grandfather got this rifle for a good price because its discrepancies are driving me nuts. It's definitely a low wall but it is chambered for 45-70 and under the barrel is a 2 about an inch in front of the fore stock. So this doesn't make sense. Would they have turned the shank down and rethreaded it to fit a low wall?

That two is the barrel weight.  Low walls got ones and twos. That means that it is a small shank receiver, just as we thought.  The chamber doesn't mean anything.  Someone could have rechambered or rebored it in the past. 

I'm not sure I understand what discrepancies you are talking about...it seems like a fairly standard early low wall to me.

On the underside there is a large leaf spring. Under it is WCF. Between the spring and the mounting bolt for the stock is the number 2. It looks like someone tried to file that same area to remove any markings but I can still read the 2. On top of the barrel is WCF and a number 2, located about 1/4 inch before the W.

In that case my barrel must be an original 32 WCF that was rebored to a larger size. That would explain why they tried to file off the original caliber indication. Now things are making more sense. You've helped me solve the mystery of this barrel. I always thought that someone had switched barrels, but not so.

Some looked up the serial number for me last week and noted that the rifle was originally built as a 32 WCF. However, I assumed incorrectly that they had replaced the barrel. 

It looks like my only option is to re-line it or find another barrel in one of the original calibers. I expect that it will be much cheaper to buy a used barrel to fit it.

It looks like your extractor has been modified too. If that is the case it will need to be changed back.  It is possible that you could buy a used extractor and a used barrel and have everything work in your rifle...but it is unlikely.

Nathan Davis wrote on Sep 13^th, 2016 at 8:12pm:


Nathan, 

     If you are referring to the Grn Mtn barrel blank that they used to refer to as their "small lever action" barrel or some such, the one that came profiled but unthreaded and unchambered, the answer is yes.  I got one in a 25 cal for one of my low-walls and had it threaded and chambered to 25-20 SS quite readily.  It came from Grn Mtn with a round section at the breech end, so I got it fitted with a "tulip" end where it meets the receiver.  No one would mistake it for original... it looks more like a #2 or #4 Ballard, but it makes for a pretty little rifle.

Froggie

My mother and uncle remember my grandfather bringing in quite a few deer with it and my uncle says it was chambered as a rifle, not as a shotgun. I can still see some rifling so I think my uncle fairly well destroyed the barrel with his dentist drill -- a rotary sanding drum on a long thin flexible line. Regardless, the present caliber of 45-70 is way out of line for the LW. I'm seeing a smith this afternoon to get estimates for re-lining. I gave my grandson a 22 last Christmas so he no longer need one.

Yesterday I took the rifle to a well-known smith. He noted that it has a high wall block, but said that will not increase the strength of the action. He also noted that I've been giving the wrong serial number for the rifle. I thought that the first number was a 1 but he noted that it is a 7. The correct serial number is 76923. A couple days ago I found WCF on the top as well as the bottom of the barrel, and a 2 in both locations. 
I talked to the smith about relining it to a 38-55 as a black powder only rifle. I shoot muzzle loading black powder rifles and love them. However, I'm also considering relining it to the original caliber if I can make sure it is the original one.
The smith was skeptical about the barrel being original to the rifle. A shallow sighting notch has been filed in the top of the receiver to make it easier to see the rear sight, but the existing barrel is so thick that the breach is higher than the sighting notch. He surmises that the rifle may have originally come with a thinner barrel. So the exisiing barrel is a Winchester barrel marked WCF, but it may not be original to the rifle.

Well, that serial isn't gonna help the strength any- just a few years younger than you figger'd. The groove on the top of the frame is there to aid in seeing the front sight with small barrels. If the barrel rises a tiny bit above that groove it's no always a replacement barrel. The factory did it that way sometimes when they were just making up things that'd fit in a hurry. Lots of factories still do stuff like that, believe me.
However, that same groove didn't do a thing to add strenth either, was used mostly on .22s, but like I said above- sometimes they were in a hurry and used what they had on hand. Just line or barrel it in a suitable (weak) round with suitable extractor- and get it over with!

  Could be. 6 pages about a derelict low wall.

Nathan,

Is there a big rush to get the rifle back in shooting shape? Why not hang it on the wall and enjoy it for a while as it is. During this time, start earmarking and saving money for the project.  Save your 308 and hunt with it for now. It'll give you time to sort out in your mind what the best plan is for the rifle.

How handy are you with tools? It might be possible for you to do the reline yourself if your go slowly and acquire and use the right tools. People have done their own relines drilling the barrel with just a 1/4" or 3/8" drill motor. Be nice to have access to a lathe to face off the liner with the ends of the barrel and cut an even crown, but there's ways to do that without a lathe.

If the rifle were mine, I'd give serious consideration to making it a 32-20 or a 38 Special (probably the 32-20), though loaded very conservatively as you plan, the 38-55 might just be a sweet caliber for it. Personally, I'd shoot it more and worry less if it was chambered for a pistol cartridge at moderate pressure.

Flinter muzzleloader is MOA at a hundred yards?  Primitive sights? Hell, even with a modern scope (oh, my heart!), that'd be fantastic.

[quote author=27283D212827672D283F203A490 link=1473359564/89#89 date=1474137939]I was very proud of my loads and skills until I met my smith last Wednesday. He showed me his muzzle loader with which he shoots 2" groups at 1000 yard using metal sights. I wouldn't believe him but he had about 2 dozen awards on the wall for his shooting. Those are the skills I want to develop. I'm still very much a novice.

Ah......What? I'd like to see that!

Terry

calledflyer wrote on Sep 17^th, 2016 at 3:29pm:


I Do...

Terry

  I'd like to see these 2" 1000yd. groups.

Nathan,

I recently acquired a Browning low wall in 45 LC.   After some work, I found a .440-.441 paper patch bullet can be pushed to 1,350 fps with no signs of excessive case or primer pressure.   The 45 LC also provides options dwon to 200 gr cowboy loads for silhouette fun.   

I had Accurate cut a 375 and 410 gr mold for 30-1 alloy.   You should have excellent expansion with this soft alloy at subsonic to 1,350 fps loads.  I also have a more traditional 285 gr  GC design that I can push to 1,550 with Alliant 300-MP before showing signs of pressure.  I think the low wall provides great options.   

I was pleased that I was able to get trapdoor performance from the 45 LC in the low wall. (4198 under the paper patch bullets)

Just a thought.

Herrschuts

I am really intrigued with the option for 45LC. I hunt deer using muzzle loader in Arkansas. They allow 40 cal or above for muzzle loader season. 

I'm intrigued with the idea of machining a center fire breech plug for a rifle that uses 45LC, so I could use it for the muzzle loading season. However, I would also need to machine an alternate screw-in chamber liner that would allow me to convert it back to a cartridge gun to fire a 45LC cartridge for the modern gun season. Has anyone done something similar to this? My concern is that the chamber wall thickness may be too thin. However, if I use a high quality steel for the chamber liner, then maybe the chamber liner would strengthen the chamber? Would this work, and what type of steel would I need to use?

I had a shot-out low wall in 25-20 SS bored out and rerifled then chambered in .32-20.    I will only use it on varmint sized critters but I like the way it shoots.