Win. 1885 Low-Wall Project

[uscra112]

The chamber wouldn't quite clean up. Good thought though. Would definitely be historically correct.

[DeadWoodDan]

Just me, but I'd go with the .32 Ideal.

AntiqueSledMan.

That's a New one for me, had to google it. Sounds Nostalgic but again using today's knowledge and components the 32Mag still wins in my book. Thanks for adding this! It's good to learn something new everyday!
The .32 Ideal was developed by Reuben Harwood (Iron Ramrod) and the Stevens company so that shot out .32 rimfire and .32-20 rifles could be rebored and rechambered to a strong, solid-head, straight shell, which in blackpowder days was considered the most up-to-date design available. Stevens offered this reboring service for this and a number of other Stevens calibers. According to most sources, the .32 Ideal was too much of a compromise for its accuracy to be competitive with .32-35's and .32-40's, but nowadays, with the doctrine of small cases and smokeless powder at full loading densities, it might be worth a second look.

The proper bullet was the obsolete Ideal 32359, or, if you're lucky, the Perfection mould 32360.
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...dge-(Low-Wall)

[uscra112]

It's the first and maybe the only American 8mm cartridge. Brass is fairly easy to make from 5.56x50R, which is still pretty common in Europe. I've got three Stevens rifles, all originally chambered for the round. NOS made moulds for me.

[ulav8r]

I would keep it as a 32/20, as that is the first centerfire cartridge I hunted with and like it. If you want something different go for it but DO Not sleeve the barrel. Remove the barrel so it can later be lined and chambered to 32/20, keeping the factory marking and it's value.

Removing the factory marking and re-marking to a different caliber will destroy it's value when you, or your heirs, decide to sell it. Setting it up as a switch barrel without altering the receiver might also be a possibility.

[GARD72977]

Just reline it to 32 mag and do not mark the barrel. There is no danger of shooting the wrong caliber in it. The 32-20 would not fit and any 32 cal that fits would be fine.

[Mk42gunner]

My opinion, keeping in mind it is your rifle:

The .32-20 makes sense for your heirs, or if you think you may sell this rifle.

The .32 H&R would be a decent choice for all the reasons noted above.

My choice would be the .32 S&W Long. For some reason a Low Wall in .32 S&W Long just seems right to me.

Robert

[AntiqueSledMan]

The chamber wouldn't quite clean up. Good thought though. Would definitely be historically correct.

Hello uscra112,

I had to look at my drawings, your correct.
I've just seen it listed as a way to freshen up .32's including the 32-20 WCF.
Thanks for pointing that out to me, I have a High Wall in 32-20 which is pretty rough.
I had contemplated chambering & boring to .32 Ideal,
guess I'll have to re-think that one.
Maybe a 32-40.

AntiqueSledMan.

[uscra112]

Stevens themselves touted it for restoring .32-20s in their catalogs, several of which I have (as reprints from Cornell). But they must have been counting on cutting the Ideal chamber pretty big.

[DeadWoodDan]

The 32 Ideal brass is not getting any cheaper at 3.76 a piece WOW! I didn't look any further as that just is not practical. That has to be in the top ten list of most expensive rounds. It is a very interesting cartridge and ahead of it's time when they came out with it. I do admire the marketing concept very much!

[Bent Ramrod]

I’ve found that I can get by using well-annealed 7.62 Nagant revolver cases, blown out straight, in my .32 Ideal. The cases come out a little short, and, (using the foreign Fiocci cases) there’s a lot of attrition, but they do work in a pinch. Maybe Starline shells, properly annealed, would crack less on firing. In any case, they save wear and tear on the expensive turned Rocky Mtn shells while I develop loads.

Low Walls have been redone to .357 Magnum, and certainly seem to do OK with Model 92 grade .32-20 loads, so if I had revolvers chambered in one of the new .32s, I would probably set up the rifle to match. For me, though, the .32-20 is king.

Nobody’s written a Blues song about the .327 Federal. Until that level of Coolness is reached, I’ll stick to the good old caliber.

[uscra112]

Just reline it to 32 mag and do not mark the barrel. There is no danger of shooting the wrong caliber in it. The 32-20 would not fit and any 32 cal that fits would be fine.

This is the final answer. Do it for the H&R magnum or .327 Federal, and later you can run a .32-20 reamer into it to restore the original chambering.

[gnoahhh]

Nobody’s written a Blues song about the .327 Federal. Until that level of Coolness is reached, I’ll stick to the good old caliber.

Right up until I read that I was leaning in favor of the .32 H&R. Anybody who can reference Robert Johnson in connection with a caliber choice is ok in my book!! For me it would be .32-20

"She got a .38 Special but I believe it's most too light
I got a .32-20, got to make the caps alright."

[uscra112]

Right up until I read that I was leaning in favor of the .32 H&R. Anybody who can reference Robert Johnson in connection with a caliber choice is ok in my book!! For me it would be .32-20

"She got a .38 Special but I believe it's most too light
I got a .32-20, got to make the caps alright."

Dang, gnoahhh, you have a good memory. I covered several RJ numbers with my college blues band, but that one never came to mind.