Log In
February 29, 2016
Offline
This is another 1885 I just acquired, It was made in 1891, sn #48225. It looks like it was a working rifle. Well used. Bore has some pitting, but rifling is good for it’s age, and shootable. I’m curious about the front sight. It looks like it’s been with the rifle for quite awhile, but I’m not sure if it’s original. I’m hesitant to use the word wear at the forearm. I got into trouble last time, so it may be sanded. Buttstock seems fitted well fitted. I think it’s all correct with the possible exception of the front sight. It does have a single set trigger.
I’m going to attach a Photobucket slideshow.
The only .38-55 ammo I have is Winchester flat nosed soft points with a copper jacket. Can I use these in this rifle? I was all I could get in the 1990’s and had been shooting them sparingly in my 1923 Winchester 1894. Or should I get all lead bullet ammo? Thanks
http://s287.photobucket.com/user/straycatcdr/slideshow/Winchester%201885%20High%20Wall%2038-55
December 1, 2012
Offline
The ammo you have is perfectly OK to shoot in your model 1885 rifle. If it was made post WWII by Winchester it will have the shorter brass casings (by about .05″) so it won’t have the potential accuracy of ammo with the correct brass length but otherwise it’ll be OK.
I’d say the forearm has definitely wear, not sanding.
The front sight is really weird – definitely not original to the rifle. The standard front sight was the Winchester Rocky Mountain No. 79.
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
April 15, 2005
Offline
It is primarily “wear” on the forend stock, and it was caused by frequently resting it on something like shooting sticks or a hard rest. The wear to the stock was caused by the recoil force sliding it sharply to the rear each time it was fired. That stated, the forend stock has been lightly sanded and refinished to clean it up… otherwise it would have raw wood exposed at the wear points.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
February 29, 2016
Offline
Thank you Bert as always. Great information.
What would be a good ammo for accuracy. Any recommendations? I think the rifling is good enough for an accurate shot.
April 15, 2005
Offline
There is no specific ammo that can be guaranteed to shoot accurately in your old high-wall. You will need to experiment with several types of ammo to find the one that shoots the best for you. The first thing I would do is slug the bore to determine what the bore diameter is, and then use a bullet that is at least .001 larger than the bore. When your rifle was made, .379 was the nominal bore diameter, but as with all machining work back in those days, there could be as much as a .003 tolerance.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
February 29, 2016
Offline
Thanks again for the help
February 29, 2016
Offline
I took my high wall out and shot it today using the soft tipped Winchester ammo with a copper jacket. Wow, is that rifle accurate! The only problem is, it bulged my primers. I looked at the block face(didn’t take the block out), and, from what I could see, I don’t think there’s any erosion around the firing pin hole. Could it be the difference in the brass casings? Is it hard to take the falling block out?
December 1, 2012
Offline
Sounds like excessive head space as that was not a high pressure load. Removing the breech block is very easy.
1) Remove the forearm and loosen the mainspring screw.
2) Back out the finger lever pin stop screw.
3) Drift the finger lever pin out (R to L).
4) Lower the breech block out of the receiver.
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
February 29, 2016
Offline
Wincacher said
Sounds like excessive head space as that was not a high pressure load. Removing the breech block is very easy.1) Remove the forearm and loosen the mainspring screw.
2) Back out the finger lever pin stop screw.
3) Drift the finger lever pin out (R to L).
4) Lower the breech block out of the receiver.
Makes sense. Bert said the post war brass cases are .05″ shorter. I wonder if the reproduction ammo would be better. Something like the Black Hills .38-55? I was surprised this old rifle was as accurate as it was with the Winchester ammo.
November 1, 2013
Offline
Wincacher said
Removing the breech block is very easy.
But not so getting it back in, unless you know some trick I’ve been unable to figure out on my own…even with plenty of practice.
December 1, 2012
Offline
Getting it back in is also quite easy, but you have to pay attention to all the alignment points as you are doing it. It works best if the receiver is on it’s side with the extractor side up. Follow the procedure in the attachment on my previous post but watch for the tip of the hammer. It has to clear the hammer slot in the receiver or the whole assembly won’t slide up. I find that as the tip of the hammer approaches the back end of the hammer slot it is best to insert a non-marring blade under the hammer tip to guide it through the slot as the assembly is being pushed in. Once the hammer tip clears, you’re in like Flint.
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
November 1, 2013
Offline
Wincacher said
I find that as the tip of the hammer approaches the back end of the hammer slot it is best to insert a non-marring blade under the hammer tip to guide it through the slot as the assembly is being pushed in. Once the hammer tip clears, you’re in like Flint.
Well, maybe that’s the trick that would have spared me much aggravation in the past. Thanks for the tip.
February 29, 2016
Offline
Wincacher said
The ammo you have is perfectly OK to shoot in your model 1885 rifle. If it was made post WWII by Winchester it will have the shorter brass casings (by about .05″) so it won’t have the potential accuracy of ammo with the correct brass length but otherwise it’ll be OK.I’d say the forearm has definitely wear, not sanding.
The front sight is really weird – definitely not original to the rifle. The standard front sight was the Winchester Rocky Mountain No. 79.
Hi Wincacher: I want to ask about this Rocky Mountain no.79 sight you have pictured. What is the color of the blade. Madis says most of the blades were nickel silver, but infrequently steel and brass blades were used. Yours looks like it may be steel.
I have a brass bladed Rocky Mountain sight in my collection. I was think of replacing the non original sight with the brass bladed sight. Don’t know if mine was made by Winchester. No markings.
December 1, 2012
Offline
1) The blase is, indeed, steel.
2) It has no markings but it is an original Winchester. You can tell by the base: the ends are curved and the edge of the ramp on each side has an elliptical edge. Copies are squared.
3) This photo was saved from the seller’s listing where I bought it. I used it to replace a non-original sight on a 3 digit 1885 that didn’t look right. I think you are right on track with your thoughts.
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
April 15, 2005
Offline
straycat23 said
Hi Wincacher: I want to ask about this Rocky Mountain no.79 sight you have pictured. What is the color of the blade. Madis says most of the blades were nickel silver, but infrequently steel and brass blades were used. Yours looks like it may be steel.
I have a brass bladed Rocky Mountain sight in my collection. I was think of replacing the non original sight with the brass bladed sight. Don’t know if mine was made by Winchester. No markings.
Madis was not correct in regards to the Rocky Mountain sights. The vast majority of them were made with a blued steel blade, and will also have a vertical oriented platinum insert (very thin). It is rare to find a Rocky Mountain front sight with a German Silver (nickel), Brass, Ivory, or Copper blade. The Knife Blade front sights were most often made with a German Silver (nickel) blade. Brass, Copper, and Ivory blades are relatively rare on any front sight.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
February 29, 2016
Offline
Bert H. said
Madis was not correct in regards to the Rocky Mountain sights. The vast majority of them were made with a blued steel blade, and will also have a vertical oriented platinum insert (very thin). It is rare to find a Rocky Mountain front sight with a German Silver (nickel), Brass, Ivory, or Copper blade. The Knife Blade front sights were most often made with a German Silver (nickel) blade. Brass, Copper, and Ivory blades are relatively rare on any front sight.
Bert
How about the base? Are they ever squared? I don’t see a platinum insert on Wincachers. Thanks to both of you. This is very helpful.
April 15, 2005
Offline
straycat23 said
How about the base? Are they ever squared? I don’t see a platinum insert on Wincachers. Thanks to both of you. This is very helpful.
No, they should not have a squared base. The picture posted by Wincacher is oriented the wrong direction to see the platinum insert.
If you blow these up, look at the front face of the sight, and you will see the platinum insert.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
February 29, 2016
Offline
Bert H. said
straycat23 said
How about the base? Are they ever squared? I don’t see a platinum insert on Wincachers. Thanks to both of you. This is very helpful.
No, they should not have a squared base. The picture posted by Wincacher is oriented the wrong direction to see the platinum insert.
If you blow these up, look at the front face of the sight, and you will see the platinum insert.
Bert
Thanks Bert.I’d sure like to see that picture, but your jpeg isn’t opening on my computer. Can you send it to my email: jbwitheratcomcast.net? Thanks
April 15, 2005
Offline
There is something wrong with the website. The pictures displayed properly when I first posted them, but now they will not.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
February 29, 2016
Offline
Bert H. said
There is something wrong with the website. The pictures displayed properly when I first posted them, but now they will not.Bert
Thanks. I’ll wait for them to fix it. Is the platinum insert on the front edge?
