doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion Classic & Custom Single Barreled Sporting Rifles @ doublegunshop.com high walls in 30 US

Can give an engineering lecture on original Low-Walls.
The Low-wall is a fine action for pistol caliber cartridges but not more.
They will not fail catastrophically unless ridiculous, but will batter and crack the right shoulder.
Modern Low-walls have raised the shoulders above the center line of the cartridge.
Chuck

Good question. I assume it's because of vastly superior metallurgy. I will confess to being mildly apprehensive about them being chambered in large-ish high pressure cartridges, but evidently it's unfounded. I have a Miroku-made Low Wall chambered for .223 and am delighted with it, by the way. But, the .223 case head area is a lot smaller than that of a .243 hence generates less push against the breech block.

Geometry and steel.

Well, the trigger bar is in the high 35k range. The rest?

I would love to see the receiver face on this gun. I wonder it has a cut for the ejector spring commonly found on low wall actions? Also, the top of the receiver is round and without the concavity that is often found on thick-tang low walls. Perhaps this is a one-off project cut down from a highwall action. It would be interesting to carefully compare the cut down walls on this gun to one such as my thick-tang rifle. But that a chore for tomorrow.

I can appreciate that a low wall should just be what it is, and that there are different locking systems. Lever rifles are an example of relatively small barrel shanks mated up to the 30-30 head size, and others just a little bigger than the low wall running the big 45 and 50 black powder cartridges.

I believe it�s absolute silliness to do an inappropriate build today, but if the 38-56 low wall is a genuine Winchester, what exactly did they do wrong back at that time? This rifle did not seem intended for high volume shooting, could it have been sold knowing a durability trade off for weight savings. There are many modern examples of guns that get rattled to bits by full power loads, but the manufacturer knows the minuscule round count that�s ever likely to go through the arm.

I examined and compared pics of original LW's and the new Winchester LW's, There appears to be a subtle difference to the action line just behind the breech block. And I want to say subtle again. If this is the change you are saying then I say that it does not rise to above the centerline to any extent. Now I do not have one to measure but measuring in AutoCad and comparing I do again say the delta is small.

Brent,
"Geometry and steel." Please elaborate on the geometry differences. Do you know what was used then and the steel used now?

Concerning the 38-56 cartridge being discussed,
The 38-56 WCF was a black powder cartridge and created well before smokeless. Using black powder, the cartridge is typical of chamber pressures that all BP cartridges see. The LW, using pressures and performance of BP, is safe to shoot for this cartridge IMO. After all you wouldn't think twice about shooting this cartridge in a Ballard a design inferior to the LW. If you shoot hot loads in any cartridge, any cartridge, bad things can happen. Some people on here already know if they improperly load cartridge the results can be very unpleasant.

I would shoot the rifle, at the center of this discussion, with BP reloads.

This particular LW rifle falls squarely in the collectible category. It is super rare if not unique. It is in high condition with original finishes. It has been legitimized by the museum records. It is one of the most unique M1885's that most collectors (e.g. me) have seen. So.... the safety of shooting it discussion is interesting but only so relevant. And by the way, I agree with Lyn regarding the safety with black powder loads.

This .38-56 has the early breech-block that does not have the rounded edges and hence the breech block is greater in weight. In addition, it has the flared receiver where the receiver meets the forearm and where the receiver meets the buttstock. Also of note, many low wall and high wall parts are interchangeable.

LRF,
John Campbell quotes B. McDaniel of South Lyon, Michigan, "the hardness of Single-Shot Receivers seems to be 'all over the map'". He goes on to explain why he agrees with that statement and McDaniel's qualifications.

Later, Campbell also lists the steels used by Winchester in this era and none of them sound like steels we would associate with modern gun steels. I would guess the the Winchester and Brownchester guns are made with 4140 or similar modern alloy.

I'm not sure how you can determine the geometry of one of those more modern low walls from a photo, but they are supposed to be quite different. They do not interest me. I do not bother looking at them.

As for a forged action Ballard being inferior to a low wall - that's just wrong. Ballard, No 5s and 5 1/2s (Pacific and Montana, respectively) were chambered for large and long .45s . I own and shoot one myself. It is not the strongest action, but the block/receiver/barrel geometry is such that is safe. No one with an ounce of qualifications as a gunsmith would put a .45-70 or bigger in a low wall, but they would all put a .45 on a Pacific or Montana.

Boltman, the thickness of the block at its top has nothing to do with strength since there is nothing behind it but air. Putting low wall parts in a highwall and vice versa mean nothing with respect to strength of the action, nor to the dimensions of the wood to metal fit, except with the potential to turn one's buttstock into a pile of toothpicks. That is not being debated here. The stock will hold.

If you compare a paneled (thin side) highwall to that particular low wall, look at how much steel has been removed. Not very much at all. Hollowing the stock would compensate for that much steel easily. This is the ONLY difference between the paneled highwall and the paneled low wall. But then look again at WHERE that the steel was removed. Every bit of it was steel that supports the block under recoil. So, for minuscule weight savings, the strength of the action takes a great hit.

The low wall was made for one reason and that was the ease of loading and unloading small, low-energy cartridges which are difficult to navigate through the trough of a highwall. It is not about weight it is about convenience. The .38-56 needs no such convenience. It is basically a lever gun round (and a poor one at that) for rifles such as the 1886.

I do miss Joe Harz and Whitey. Joe would not be impressed with that .38-56 either.

If it�s authentic, it doesn�t have to impress based on hundred year later justifications. All it had to do was stand the test of time, the less changes from original the better, for appreciating by those that want to. Maybe, the question should be, are there historical records showing why Winchester would go so far away from conventional thought, not that a rifle can be nit picked in theory. This rifle is much more interesting than rehashing why .22 short is an appropriate chambering.