Log In
July 11, 2005
Offline
I watch the online auctions looking for interesting high walls/low walls or model 1885 Winchesters and have come across a naming practice that does not seem right so I am asking the experts, cue Bert or other knowledgeable forum watcher.
The high walls were made in the flat “thick side” and the paneled or “thin side” versions. so far it makes sense to me. Wrist and forearm diameters or thicknesses are about the same for both versions.
The issue comes from the naming of the low wall versions. Some were made from cut down high wall thin or paneled side actions. Some were made from a low wall only action, flat side but of a smaller diameter or width at the wrist or forearm. Smaller, lighter and in my opinion more elegant versions of the single shot action. The issue is that I see sellers calling the panel sided low wall actions “thin side” low walls. I have not come across a common name for the flat side low wall actions but it seems to me that these would be the “thin side” low walls. The cut down high wall action low walls are larger and heavier guns, almost as heavy as the high walls depending on the barrel weight.
Can anyone offer some guidance here so I don’t sound like an idiot when discussing these rifles?
Gib Curtis Bozeman MT
April 15, 2005
Offline
Gib,
As you noted, there are two primary styles for the high-wall frames; Thick-side, and Thin-side (a.k.a. panel-side). For each of the high-wall frames, both are found with faceted (octagon contour) frame rings, and with the more common round frame rings.
For the low-wall, there were three styles of frames; (1) the early production panel-side with the full height breech block; (2) the flat-side (thin-frame); and (3) the panel-side late production Winder Muskets. I refer to them as “First”, “Second”, and “Third” variation low-walls.
The First variation very closely resembles a high-wall that has been milled to size, but it is not. The upper and lower tangs are actually slightly lighter/thinner than a high-wall, and the frame ring is drilled and machined for a small shank barrel .845″ diameter versus a .935″ diameter barrel shank.
The Second variation was specifically milled as is, with the upper & lower tangs being even lighter/thinner in size, and with the breech blocks milled to match the contour of the frame. The frame ring was drilled & machined for a .845″ barrel shank diameter.
The Third variation (Winder Musket) is thin-side high-wall remachined to look like a low-wall. The upper & lower tangs are the same size, and the frame ring is drilled & machined for a large shank .935″ barrel.
Of the three low-wall frame types (variations), the Third variation is the strongest and most versatile.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
July 11, 2005
Offline
Thanks Bert, although I admit I was hoping for something catchier than first, second and third.
April 15, 2005
Offline
GCurtis said
Thanks Bert, although I admit I was hoping for something catchier than first, second and third.
Gib,
Winchester did not have any special name for any of them. I (as a diehard Model 1885 collector and researcher) have named them “1st”, “2nd”, and “3rd” variation low-walls simply to differentiate between the types.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
1 Guest(s)
