I would like to know since I have one as you described.

I've been trying to sort out the Winder tales for some years.  Here is my version:   

Winchester made .22 rimfire muskets about as soon as the Single Shot Musket was listed in their catalog, but did not sell many.  The early ones (both in Short and later in Long Rifle) were fitted with 2 bands and left-over sights from the Hotchkiss rifles (all that, more or less).   

Winchester was busy, but paid attention to potential markets.  In 1900, "military miniature rifle shooting" (what evolved into 4-position smallbore indoor and outdoor shooting) was brought to the US.  Certainly, the Winchester R&D guys looked at the emerging market with the High Wall musket in mind.   

Stevens also watched the emerging market.  Within a year or two, Stevens was producing the Stevens-Pope .22 LR barrels for the Krag service rifle.  Winder & several other National Guard officers bought them (probably with state funds) and converted several dozens of Krags to .22 LR.

Using Krags as .22 training rifles produced very positive results, but in 1904, Winder & the others got into trouble for converting Krag service rifles without authorization.  That is when Winder got a Winchester Single Shot Musket for himself. Did he buy it?  Did Winchester give it to him?  Did Winchester put the Krag sight on a 2-band musket or did Winder do it himself?  In any event, a 2-band High Wall in .22 Long Rifle with a Krag rear sight is now a First Model Winder.

After using his rifle, Winder wrote to Winchester suggesting some modifications.  Winchester management liked Winder's ideas and hired him as a consultant.  The Second Model has one band, a perch-belly military forearm and a Krag rear sight mounted directly ahead of the High Wall action.  They were made in both .22 Short (mainly for indoor use) and in .22 LR.  My 2nd Model barrel (on a 3rd Model) is slightly larger in diameter at the breech end and with a marginally different taper than the later 3rd Models.  A 3rd Model forearm does not fit.  Winchester made the 2nd Model Winder for 10+ years, but did not sell too many, maybe 8,000?

The 3rd Model, with High Wall actions milled to Low Wall profile, and with a Lyman 53 rear sight, was produced  in .22 Short for military contracts from December 1917 through November 1918.  Those in Long Rifle (with or without flaming bombs) were probably assembled post-war from parts on hand.  They were sold thru the DCM and by Winchester.  Maybe 17,000 total?

CW wrote on Apr 19^th, 2018 at 9:41am:


That's Bert, the chief moderator of the Winchester Collectors forum, in Wa. state.  The Win SS is his specialty, but he never so far as I know produced a work on it alone.  He's a gold mine, however, of info about them.  What he did publish is the Red Book of Win. values.

CW wrote on Apr 20^th, 2018 at 1:15pm:


Seems pretty clear to me now merely from the preceding comments.  Some WRA document that defines the specifications?  It doesn't exist, because as I previously pointed out, WRA did NOT use "Winder" as applied to anything--it's collector's terminology.

CW wrote on Apr 20^th, 2018 at 3:51pm:


An ignorant misuse of the term; although probably (because of the senselessness of that cartridge in a musket) quite a rare chambering.    

Redsetter wrote on Apr 20^th, 2018 at 2:08pm:

Having now read the 2010 winter issue of the Winchester Arms Collector, it is pretty clear there was a Gov contract with a contract number and specifications for what they were buying from Winchester. There is a lot of good data in that issue.

Also, to put this into perspective, knowing something about the timeline and relationship Charlies Winder had with Winchester is very helpful.

Old-Win wrote on Apr 28^th, 2018 at 6:24pm:


No--only the 3rd model, the so-called Model 87, was built with a cut down high wall receiver. (Should have been done at the outset of the Winder saga, because chambering a HW  for .22 RF is idiotic.)  WRA did this, rather than use LW rcvrs.,  because, it is believed, there was a surplus of unfinished HW rcvrs. in the parts bins, and the 87 was seen as a way to use them up, despite the extra machine work required.

Campbell described all this in Vol. 1 of his two SS books.  However, a better account of the whole Winder story is found in M. D. Waite's March, 1978, Rifleman article, "Col. Winder and His Musket."  (Waite was the best of the Rifleman's technical writers from the '60s to the '80s. No Campbellian speculations, just the facts.)