Interesting Model 1885 Highwall.|Winchester Rifles|Forum|Winchester Collector

That gun, or another in the same configuration, was listed on a different site within the last yr., one of a very small no. (about a doz, I think) made to the same specs.  There was a fixed priced on the other gun in the 10 G range, which didn’t seem excessive to me, considering the extreme rarity.  Gary Quinlan had one for sale about 30 yrs ago, only one I ever saw “in person.”  Some records of the custom shop included name of customer, but appears this one did not. 

Bert H. said
To start with, there were (27) identical “International Match” rifles that were manufactured for the 1913 Palma Match.

Rules for the Palma Match changed over time, but by 1912 if not earlier, rifles allowed in team competition were supposed to be each nation’s standard service rifle, with slight modifications allowed, such as receiver sights replacing brl sights.  In the 1913 match, the US team shot 1903s, Canadians shot the Ross, English shot Enfields, & so on.  There was also a new match for free-rifles, which could be of any design, & a few High Walls were specially made for that competition; they look like Schuetzen rifles, not military rifles. (Photos in Trefethan’s Americans & Their Guns.)

As for the Gunrunner rifle, I can’t find any way on the website to ask a question about this gun.  Why does the factory letter say “.30 rimless,” if it’s built for the rimmed case?

Bert H. said

Wherever it is you are getting your information from, you need to recheck it for accuracy.

As I stated, there were (27) identical high-wall rifles made for the 1913 Palma match, not just “a few High Halls” as you state.  They most definitely do not look like or evenly closely resemble a “Schuetzen rifle”.  They were very distinctly unique in many features.

The factory records for that rifle do not say “.30 rimless”.  Instead, it very says clearly states “30 Rim in 1906” which in plain English is 30-06 Rimmed.  Having personally examined (7) of the (27) Internatinal Match rifles, all of them are indeed chambered for a rimmed 30-06 cartridge, including the specific rifle in question.

You misquoted my post:  I did NOT say the International Match resembled a Schuetzen, I said the Winchester FREE RIFLE resembled a Schuetzen.  Did you look at the source I provided?  The factory letter posted on the Gunrunner site clearly says “RIMLESS.”  (Did you read it?)  If that’s incorrect, then the Museum recorded the error, not I.

And I say again, the Palma Match was restricted to standard service rifles in 1913, according to everything I’ve read about this match, such as Crossman’s Military & Sporting Rifles; he was one of the competitors in the 1912 match.  In what source do you find the International Match listed as having been used in the Palma Match?

tionesta1 said

As for the Gunrunner rifle, I can’t find any way on the website to ask a question about this gun. 

You need to go to their home page and click on contact us.

https://www.gunrunnerauctions.com/contact/

  

Thanks.  I’ll try that, but suspect I’ll just be told “we have no other info except factory letter.”

Bert H. said Next time try reading everything that is available to you.
Bert

  

As carefully as you read my statement about the Winchester free-rifle?  Still waiting on some evidence that the International Match was intended for Palma competition–that’s shooting at from 800 to 1000 yds, at which range the sights on it would have been a severe disadvantage.  But even with better sights, how could it qualify as a service rifle?  (Palma Match today, by the way, is shot under different rules than in 1913, when it was still competition between national teams.)

Old-Win said
I have been questioning the history of these rifles over time and what is certain, is that there is not much agreement on anything.  Here are a few things that I found but who knows?  The rifle was intended to be shot in the new “International Match” at 300 meters, not the Palma match. Makes sense as no palm rest would be needed for a prone match. As far as rimmed vs. rimless, the argument may never end but in Campbell’s book Vol 1 on page 165, he describes the screw on the left side of the receiver as containing the spring for the rimless cartridge extractor.  Was this designed by Burton and that is why his name is mentioned in the letter?  If Campbell is correct, why doesn’t the screw line up with the front of the breach block or is the spring of some length? As far as the safety interlock, I believe that it is the piece that runs through the top of the hammer not having anything to do with the screw..  It would not be practical for a shooter to have a screwdriver in his pocket and turn that screw a 1/4 or 1/2 turn to make the rifle ready for firing. I handled two of these rifles some years back but at that time I was not aware of the rimmed vs rimless argument or it would have been easy for me to check the chamber for a rim cut.

I found a description of the guns & the special match they were built for in the 7-17-1913 ed of Arms & the Man.  It was to be called the International Union Match & fired at Camp Perry that yr; purpose of this article was to notify those who might be interested in tryouts for the US team, for it (like Palma) was a team competition against teams from Europe.  Was to be a 3-position match at 300 meters, because it was supposed to be “international.”

The most interesting aspect of the design of the rifles was that they were to be furnished with TWO interchangeable stocks, one for prone & kneeling which matches the description of the “International Match,” & another Schuetzen-style stock with palm-rest for the off-hand part of the match.  Who knows whether this ambitious plan was actually carried out, but at least two of the Schuetzen or Free Rifle stocks were built, because Campbell described one, & another is shown in the book I mentioned above. 

You’re right–hammer interlock required by match rules, has nothing to do with rimless extractor.  If all these rifles were built for the rimmed case, that extractor must have been found to be undesirable for some reason, though you’d think it would have been thoroughly tested before the rcvrs were modified for it.

I’ll say it again for the hard of hearing: the Palma match was at this time restricted to the SERVICE RIFLES of each country that participated.