Highwall with lowall breech block safe for 32-40??

[brianhearn]

Just got a rebarreled 1890ish 1885 Winchester back after a 2 yr 3 month visit to a 'smith. This oldie Highwall was in 38-55, I had rechambered to 38-50 rem by a bud, but it never shot either cartridge well. So I went for a new barrel maker who chambered in 32-40, and maybe now an accurate life. 'smith sends note confirming a phone call--rifle as is has a lowall breechblock and not safe to shoot. Overly cautious? Cant believe I was so smitten with oldie not to have noticed wrong block!!

[bob208]

well I dug out my low wall and high walls. I can not see a difference. they interchange. the .22 rimfire uses a block that is cut out on the rear. even then it can be converted to centerfire. the high wall winder muskets used the rimfire breach blocks.

[oldred]

Well there is a profound difference in strength due to lack of support on the upper block and the low wall block in a high wall receiver would essentially yield the lower strength of the low wall. Now after having said that I fail to see where it would be a problem with a 32-40, a 45/70 or some other more powerful cartridge maybe but I kind of doubt a 32-40 would be a problem with normal loads.

[pietro]

.

An original M-1885 High Wall receiver, with a CF M-1885 Low Wall breechblock, would be OK for the .32-40, etc - there's plenty of breechblock support, as opposed to a M-1885 Low Wall receiver's.


.

[oldred]

I think so too unless there is some other issue the 'smith is not mentioning, could the substituted block have a head space issue maybe? This would of course have nothing to do with high wall vs low wall conversion but just the fact it is a substituted part could account for fitment issues, then again maybe he is just trying to err on the safe side.

[mikeym1a]

I am not a gunsmith, a metallurgist, or a machinist. Nor do I own a hi-wall, or a low-wall. I did, however, look up the difference. The receiver of the high-wall it taller at the rear of the breechblock, giving it full support. The 'low-wall' tapers off behind the breechblock, supporting only the lower 2/3s of the breechblock. All other things being equal, if the blocks of the two types are physically the same, and otherwise interchangable, the strength lies in the receiver, not in the block itself. So, I fail to see the 'smith's' concern, unless it is simply the fact that it is not the 'standard' part. Just my un-educated opinion. mikey

[wch]

Ask your question at the single shot rifle assoc. forum.
www.assa.com

[oldred]

I am not a gunsmith, a metallurgist, or a machinist. Nor do I own a hi-wall, or a low-wall. I did, however, look up the difference. The receiver of the high-wall it taller at the rear of the breechblock, giving it full support. The 'low-wall' tapers off behind the breechblock, supporting only the lower 2/3s of the breechblock. All other things being equal, if the blocks of the two types are physically the same, and otherwise interchangable, the strength lies in the receiver, not in the block itself. So, I fail to see the 'smith's' concern, unless it is simply the fact that it is not the 'standard' part. Just my un-educated opinion. mikey

That's what we have been saying, with the low wall block the rifle would have approximately the strength of the low wall despite the extra support of the high wall frame because this extra support would not be used. HOWEVER, even with the low wall configuration the 32-40 should be safe in this low wall/high wall hybrid since it was offered as a factory clambering in low wall configuration. Now if it was in 45/70 or some other more powerful round then it obviously would not be safe but I can see no reason (based on nothing but the block substitution being the case) for the rifle to not be safe for any round that is safe in a true low wall.

[Mk42gunner]

2 years 3 months and the "smith" doesn't think it is safe to shoot? I would be checking his other work on this rifle very carefully.

The 2y3m thing is why I started doing my own work; that way I can do a little, lose interest for a while, rinse and repeat and still have the gun sooner.

What about finding a high wall breechblock and fitting it, oh and don't forget to check headspace again. A chamber cast would not be out of order either.

Sorry, but your description does not give me warm and fuzzy feelings about the rebarrel job.

Robert

[oldred]

It's not like the low wall is some kind of inherently weak action, maybe not the brute the high wall is but it's a long way from what I would consider weak when dealing with calibers such as 32-40. Either this 'smith is being overly cautious or there is another issue he is concerned about, maybe you should ask him for a little more info?



It could be that he's concerned with liability from sending out a job with a known wrong part that obviously would not have the strength of the original rifle.

[Mach_Cat]

High wall blocks show up on ebay frequently. The cost about 100. Easy to change yourself. No. Gunsmith needed for that then resell the the lowwall block they go about 50. And you are really good to go. Just Make sure you buy a center fire block.

[TCLouis]

Removed by poster

[John Taylor]

Boulder River Foundry Inc, 406-932-6540 has new castings for the high wall. It would take some machine work but you could make the block with a close fit. http://www.ballardarms.com/parts_merchandise.shtml has new breach blocks for $200 and another $30 for the firing pin.