1895 Low Wall vs High Wall

Welcome to the Leverguns.Com Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here ... politely.

Moderators: AmBraCol, Hobie

Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.

Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
Post Reply
daisygordoninc
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:06 am
Location: Junction City Oregon

1895 Low Wall vs High Wall

Post by daisygordoninc »

Winchester 1885
Was the Low Wall built before the High Wall.
Some seem to think the High Wall was build
for added strength and higher powered calibers?
User avatar
Streetstar
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 3869
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:58 am
Location: from what used to be Moore OK

Re: 1895 Low Wall vs High Wall

Post by Streetstar »

I recently read an article from ann old gun Digest about this --- unless my memory is fuzzy, the Low Walls were done in the "cat sneeze" calibers, while the high walls were chambered in the heavy hitters of the time
----- Doug
User avatar
earlmck
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 3423
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 12:10 am
Location: pert-neer middle of Oregon

Re: 1895 Low Wall vs High Wall

Post by earlmck »

I'm sure Streetstar is right: High Walls for the larger diameter cartridges, Low Wall for the smaller diameter. I don't think it was a pressure difference thing as much as a diameter difference differentiation.

I have an old low wall in K-Hornet that I unintentionally fed a blue pill load a couple years ago. Hodgdon shows their Lil' Gun powder practically working miracles for velocities in these small cases, so I bought a pound and loaded up some with their suggested starting load. Zowie! That particular lot of powder in my particular rifle sent pressures through the roof! As in when I got the action open (yeah, it was kinda' stiff) there was no primer to be found and I had a case that could probably have held a shotgun primer.

No damage to the rifle, and I have since done very nicely with a different lot of that powder (yes I started waaay below suggested starting load the next time!) but I can assure you the old Low Walls can handle some serious pressure, though I make sure mine doesn't handle it on a regular basis.
The greatest patriot...
is he who heals the most gullies.
Patrick Henry
Ray Newman
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 2042
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: Between No Where & No Place, WA

Re: 1895 Low Wall vs High Wall

Post by Ray Newman »

In a nut shell:

--Original action designed by John Browning, who sold it to Winchester, who refined it.

--The High Wall came first, then the Low Wall.

--High Wall was chambered for rifle cartridges; Low Wall for pistol calibers.

--Very strong action and the modern Browning/Winchester Japanese-made rifles are even stronger.

--Due to the barrel shank diameter, not advisable to re-barrel an original Low Wall to a rifle cartridge, even though it has been done by some.
The most important aspect of this signature line is that you don't realize it doesn't say anything significant until you are just about done reading it & then it is too late to stop reading it....
Grand Poo Bah WA F.E.S.

In real life may you be the bad butt that you claim to be on social media.
Pete44ru
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 11242
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:26 am

Re: 1895 Low Wall vs High Wall

Post by Pete44ru »

.

Original condition 1885's, either High or Low Wall's, are too valuable today to rebarrel, period.



.
jmiller
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:40 pm

Re: 1895 Low Wall vs High Wall

Post by jmiller »

Recently Winchester/Miroku released some low walls in a few rifle calibers. I don't remember all the calibers but I know as soon as I sell a revolver I'm trying to get rid of I'm going to get a low wall in .243. They pop up on gunbroker from time to time. Some on there now.
BrentD

Re: 1895 Low Wall vs High Wall

Post by BrentD »

Pete44ru wrote:.

Original condition 1885's, either High or Low Wall's, are too valuable today to rebarrel, period.
.
I would certainly disagree. I've rebarreled 4 of them so far and almost everyone who shoots one competitively rebarrels as needed. If they are not of pristine collector quality, rebarreling may very well enhance, not detract.

There is a lot of variation in the 1885, esp. the low wall version. Speaking just of the "original" version of 1885s (not recent Japanese Winchester or Browning flavors), the highwalls were factory built with everything from .22 rf to 45-90s and .50-90 (I am pretty sure) and .30-06. They came with 4 different types of triggers, at least 6 different barrel weights, full-oct, half-oct, and full-round barrels. Sporting, Special Rifle, Special Sporting Rifle, a couple of schuetzen, musket and misc other stock configurations. And the commonly named "thick" and "thin" sides.

The low walls were more complicated. They had large shanks (identical to the highwall), small shanks (most common), thick tangs (highwall-esque), thin tangs, scalloped (mistakenly called thin) sides, or unscalloped (thinner but called thick by some), all the stock configurations of the highwall, and - well, it gets complicated after that.

John Campbell's excellent 2 volume series, "The Winchester Singleshot" is the definitive work on the rifle and well illustrated and photographed. Worth every penny - hint: order a drool rag with the book

No original low wall should be barreled in a heavy caliber. Ever. What's heavy? Debatable. Maybe .32-40 for most folks. .22 hornet or .25-20 or .32-20 are good calibers for it. Esp. the later two. It is not shank diameter but block support that matters. Modern Japanese actions may support a .243 or more, but their geometry, gastro-intestinal architecture, and metallurgy are all vastly different.

Here are three of my rebarreled 'walls.

http://www.public.iastate.edu/~jessie/P ... rs%203.jpg
User avatar
bsaride
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1268
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: 1895 Low Wall vs High Wall

Post by bsaride »

I've always wondered about the different triggers, pros and cons. Thanks
KI6WZU
NRA member
Image
"When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'present' or 'not guilty.'"
--President Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919)

“Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner”
BrentD

Re: 1895 Low Wall vs High Wall

Post by BrentD »

I can't claim to be an expert on singleshot triggers but I've owned 3 of the 4 types.

The plain trigger is probably the best if properly tuned. Not many folks will believe that - and I don't own one right now myself but I still believe it is not an unreasonable statement.

That said, the most common of the set triggers is the single set trigger. Identifiable by the small adjustment screw right behind the trigger. It is an excellent trigger when properly tuned, but it takes a priest to drive out the evil spirits that a problem trigger can sometimes have. I like these a lot and have three of them.

The close double set is identified by two triggers, the rear one spooning with the front one with just the tiniest gap in between. The trigger is set by pushing them forward like the single set. It fits inside the same trigger bow as the single set or plain trigger. I have never owned one but my main BPCR shooting partner uses one and like it pretty well though it has "acted out" on him on occasion. That said, his triggers get rode hard, so 'tis to be expected.

Last up of the triggers is the wide double set as seen in the top rifle in the picture I posted earlier. This requires either a wide "S" lever or the ultra sexy "Helm spur lever" as shown in the photo. This is, by far, the most desirable trigger, but in my opinion, the worst trigger of the three. My rifle no longer wears that trigger and is now running a single set. The reason I dislike them is that, even with a size L or XL hand, I find that the trigger guard just plain interferes with a good, natural grip, esp. in offhand. That said, it breaks wonderfully. I sold that trigger set for well over $400 dollars, and I could have gotten even more. Nicely, all four trigger sets are interchangeable assemblages.

I forgot to mention that these rifles come in flat spring and coil spring actions with the latter also being available with a takedown option (somewhat rare), and some guys (like me) often run both flat and coil springs as are found in the top two rifles in that photo, the bottom rifle being a plain flatspring.

Early receivers often have octagon receiver rings, and some low walls have a round receiver ring that is scooped out on top for low sights in .22 rifles with skinny barrels.

There are millions (well lots anyway) of factory custom-shop variants that were made.

I love Winchester singleshots - in case you hadn't guessed by now. I think they are the best singleshot rifle ever made, bar none. Maybe the best rifle, period :o
Mike Armstrong
Levergunner 3.0
Posts: 506
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: 1895 Low Wall vs High Wall

Post by Mike Armstrong »

Many years ago I bought a Win "Winder Musket" barreled action that had been converted to centerfire (I think they just substituted a centerfire block for the original rimfire one) and rebarreled to .30-30. Being of the timid sort, I pulled the barrel and replaced it with a shot-out Winder Musket barrel that I relined to .25-20 WCF. Been shooting it ever since. As near as I can tell the .30-30 barrel was never fired--probably a good thing!

I've seen Low Walls rebarreled to .32-40 and used by match shooters with black powder or low-pressure "duplex" loads. That is probably OK, but keep in mind that these actions last forever and the next guy may not have got the memo and load up some smokeless deer loads....

I also love 'walls and have a few, mostly sad old wrecks that I did rebarrel or at least reline. Only one pristine one, a High Wall .38-40 with an original #1 barrel usually used on Low Walls.

But I also have a C. Sharps Arms clone made in Montana in .25-35 and another in .44-40. Nice guns that please me much more than Japanese-made ones in "modern" calibers. A question of taste, I guess. But you can actually go to Big Timber and see the guns made and order just what you want them to make. Very much worth the trip and the cost.

BRENTD, what calibers are those beauties in ???
BrentD

Re: 1895 Low Wall vs High Wall

Post by BrentD »

Mike Armstrong wrote:I've seen Low Walls rebarreled to .32-40 and used by match shooters with black powder or low-pressure "duplex" loads. That is probably OK, but keep in mind that these actions last forever and the next guy may not have got the memo and load up some smokeless deer loads....
Very good advice. I know of a couple .38-55 low walls. But I wouldn't, even with just blackpowder.

Wyoming Armory in Cody Wyoming is also making new 'walls to order. Very nice and priced accordingly of course.

Brent
jmiller
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:40 pm

Re: 1895 Low Wall vs High Wall

Post by jmiller »

"I love Winchester singleshots - in case you hadn't guessed by now. I think they are the best singleshot rifle ever made, bar none. Maybe the best rifle, period "


Got to agree with you. They are near perfect in every way.
Chuck 100 yd
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 6972
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:52 pm
Location: Ridgefield WA. USA

Re: 1895 Low Wall vs High Wall

Post by Chuck 100 yd »

There were also Thick and Thin walled versions of both actions making 4 versions.
BrentD

Re: 1895 Low Wall vs High Wall

Post by BrentD »

Chuck I tried to outline the "wall types" in my first post. While the thick vs thin designation works okay on the highwalls, it is flat wrong on the low walls as commonly applied. The walls in the low wall in the picture I posted are the same thickness as the "thick" wall version of the low wall, but you have to look closely to see why and it was done. It is best to not refer to low walls as thick or thin. I call them scalloped and flat sided, others call them panel or flat sided. It gets confusing fast.

Brent
barbarossa
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 1:46 pm

Re: 1895 Low Wall vs High Wall

Post by barbarossa »

I have a C Sharps High Wall in 22lr and absolutely love it.Actually I had it out hunting rabbits today,though a little heavy for hunting it balances well and carries very easy.
jdad
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 3434
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Oregon

Re: 1895 Low Wall vs High Wall

Post by jdad »

I had a special order low wall that dated to 1886 and came out of the "creators" hardware store. Very few small caliber/rimfires were sent to them since out West the large calibers were in more demand, for big game.


Image
I know a whole lot about very little and nothing about a whole lot.
Chuck 100 yd
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 6972
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:52 pm
Location: Ridgefield WA. USA

Re: 1895 Low Wall vs High Wall

Post by Chuck 100 yd »

BrentD , OOPS! I skipped right over that. You are right of course. I had a low wall in .32-20 when I was kid. Never did find any ammo for it and traded it for a bolt action 20ga. I wish I had it today.
BrentD

Re: 1895 Low Wall vs High Wall

Post by BrentD »

Chuck 100 yd wrote:BrentD , OOPS! I skipped right over that. You are right of course. I had a low wall in .32-20 when I was kid. Never did find any ammo for it and traded it for a bolt action 20ga. I wish I had it today.
Well, that's one where you did not come out ahead. But the story of life is win some lose some.

jdad -that is something special, and I would not let go of that one easily. I presume there is a premium for that barrel stamp.
jdad
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 3434
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Oregon

Re: 1895 Low Wall vs High Wall

Post by jdad »

BrentD wrote:

jdad -that is something special, and I would not let go of that one easily. I presume there is a premium for that barrel stamp.

I bought if Gunbroker about 4 years ago, for around $700 IIRC. The dealer never showed or mentioned the BB stamp. I had my fun and sold it off a couple of years ago and I think it closed around $1300. It's just a "thing", so no regrets.
I know a whole lot about very little and nothing about a whole lot.
BrentD

Re: 1895 Low Wall vs High Wall

Post by BrentD »

jdad wrote: I bought if Gunbroker about 4 years ago, for around $700 IIRC. The dealer never showed or mentioned the BB stamp. I had my fun and sold it off a couple of years ago and I think it closed around $1300. It's just a "thing", so no regrets.
If you are happy, it was probably a good deal all around. I suspect the chances are the other guy is really happy too.
Post Reply