Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
The descriptive terms, High Wall and Low Wall – are they collector terms or were they used by Winchester? I was looking through my Winchester 1916 catalog reprint and I didn’t see either of these terms used, despite both models pictured. If they are collector terms, about when did they come into use? It seems to me, you didn’t order a, “High Wall” or a, “Low Wall.” Rather, you selected the chambering for your M1885 and based on the cartridge chosen, they sent you a High Wall or Low Wall (a certain .38-56 being an exception).
All I know is all the early catalogs I have list it as the Winchester single shot rifle. I have a bunch of reprints and one original catalog from 1905. I don’t know when folks started calling it the 1885. Maybe that is a collector term as well?
No mention of high or low wall in the catalogs I looked at.
I call myself a collector as it sounds better than hoarder
Bill Hockett said
All I know is all the early catalogs I have list it as the Winchester single shot rifle. I have a bunch of reprints and one original catalog from 1905. I don’t know when folks started calling it the 1885. Maybe that is a collector term as well?No mention of high or low wall in the catalogs I looked at.
That’s right! They didn’t even call it the Model 1885. And of course, unlike most of the lever-action models, the tangs weren’t marked as to model. So, “Model 1885,” “High Wall” and, “Low Wall” are all later terms applied by others. Winchester thought of the rifle as the Single Shot Model. Very interesting.
steve004 said
It seems to me, you didn’t order a, “High Wall” or a, “Low Wall.” Rather, you selected the chambering for your M1885 and based on the cartridge chosen, they sent you a High Wall or Low Wall (a certain .38-56 being an exception).
That’s exactly how it was done, with the exception noted below. The catalog parts list doesn’t even discriminate between the two receivers–just a listing for “receiver.” Within the factory, the LW was designated the #2 rcvr., the HW, #3 rcvr., but a customer wouldn’t have known this.
.22 RFs were ordinarily built on the #2, but then some with #3 wt. brls. were built on the #3 rcvr. In that case, the brl. wt., not the cartridge, must have dictated frame size. No doubt there were other exceptions as well, but in general, the company decided which rcvr. to use.
Bill Hockett said
I don’t know when folks started calling it the 1885.
It wasn’t Madis, or anybody else writing about this model earlier than he did.
Then to throw a wrench into the works they designated the lo-wall .22 musket a mod. ’87 for the U.S. military.
W.A.C.A. life member, Marlin Collectors Assn. charter and life member, C,S.S.A. member and general gun nut.
Henry Mero said
Then to throw a wrench into the works they designated the lo-wall .22 musket a mod. ’87 for the U.S. military.
A question that has puzzled others, such as John Campbell; no rhyme or reason has been discovered far as I know. Watrous called it “arbitrary,” but it likely meant something to somebody, who never explained. But it wasn’t an “1887” (that was a shotgun), just an 87. Not even a true LW, that is, a #2 rcvr., but a cut-down #3.
My 1885 22LR has a round top receiver. I have seen others with a grooved top receiver. What receiver would have been usually furnished on a 22? This one has a 2 leaf folding rear sight and and is drilled and tapped for a tang sight. Thanks, Don
[email protected] said
My 1885 22LR has a round top receiver. I have seen others with a grooved top receiver. What receiver would have been usually furnished on a 22? This one has a 2 leaf folding rear sight and and is drilled and tapped for a tang sight. Thanks, Don
Grooved is most common, but I too have one that’s round. What weight barrel? All tangs were D&T; rear sight may or may not be factory, but probably not.
Clarence, my rifle was made in 1904 and is fitted with Lyman folding sight 6 as shown on page 581 of Madis’ “THE WINCHESTER BOOK”. I have letterebd this rifle and it has a 28″ No. 1 barrel. The letter refers to nickel butt plate but does not mention nickel receiver nor single set trigger nor any reference to sights. The front sight is what I believe Winchester called a JACK SIGHT. Don
[email protected] said
Clarence, my rifle was made in 1904 and is fitted with Lyman folding sight 6 as shown on page 581 of Madis’ “THE WINCHESTER BOOK”. I have letterebd this rifle and it has a 28″ No. 1 barrel. The letter refers to nickel butt plate but does not mention nickel receiver nor single set trigger nor any reference to sights. The front sight is what I believe Winchester called a JACK SIGHT. Don
Another example of probable errors in a factory letter. No mention of sights is to be expected if fitted with standard sights for this model, but overlooking the SST & nickeled rcvr. (assuming they’re original) is pretty shoddy. The #6 combined with a jack sight “makes sense,” but the probability is they were added later. A #1 brl. should be matched with a grooved rcvr. ring, but this rifle proves (not that it needs proving again) that the usual “rules” could be bent for who knows what reason. Maybe the longer than standard (24″) brl. has something to do with the use of a round rcvr. ?
1 Guest(s)
