Low Wall-High Wall
What is the difference between a low wall and a high wall rifle?
0
-
I'll let Bert go into the details, but basically the receiver shape.
Low Wall
High Wall0 -
The important difference is in the weight and strength of the frame.
In the high-wall, the entire height of the breech block is supported by the mortise rails, and it has a much larger thrust bearing surface.
In the low-wall, the rear of the frame is milled down (reduced), and the breech block is milled (contoured) to match it. The total bearing surface is significantly reduced in the low-wall.
Winchester designed the low-wall for pistol sized centerfire cartridges, and rimfire cartridges. The high-wall was designed for full-sized rifle cartridges up to the 577 Eley (though the 50-110 Express and 405 WCF were the most potent cartridges).0 -
Bert H.,
I thought John M. Browning designed the 1885 Winchester.Was his original design high or low? Thanks.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tocamoha
Bert H.,
I thought John M. Browning designed the 1885 Winchester.Was his original design high or low? Thanks.
John M. Browning did design and patent it, and his original design was what we now call the high-wall. When Winchester bought the patent from him in December of 1883, Winchester's William Mason immediately began to make changes to it, and one of those changes was a reduced size frame (called the low-wall). Winchester never actually referred to them as high and low wall. It is we the collectors that created that terminology.0 -
Thanks everybody, I can see the difference in the pictures after looking at them side by side. 0 -
I always call my real Winchester a "Single Shot" because the company did not use the highwall and lowwall monickers.
Mecham calls his reproduction a Highwall and explains the derevation; C. Sharps and Ballard call theirs an 1885 Highwall. The Browning/Winchester/Miroku non-exact repro is also cataloged as a Highwall.0 -
there are also four different frame structures which I believe contributes to the stregnth of each example: Bert may correct me on this: Thickside highwall-strongest
Thinside highwall---and ditto for the lowalls.
Each action is a different weight. Also the barrel shank size comes in two different dimensions. (threads)0 -
quote:Originally posted by cody45
there are also four different frame structures which I believe contributes to the stregnth of each example: Bert may correct me on this: Thickside highwall-strongest
Thinside highwall---and ditto for the lowalls.
Each action is a different weight. Also the barrel shank size comes in two different dimensions. (threads)
Close, but not quite accurate.
The early high-walls (for the most part) were of the thick-side variety, and were the strongest based on wall thickness. The panel-side (thin-side) high-wall frames are by far the most common, and were used for all calibers.
The low-walls were made in three different frame dimensions.
The earliest (I refer to them as 1st variation) were the panel-sided frames, and they were essentially a high-wall frame milled to low-wall dimensions, with slightly reduced (thinner) tang dimensions. They were with rare exception made for the small shank barrel (.845" versus .935" used on the high-wall).
The flat-sided low-wall (2nd variation, and by far the most common) was an entirely new frame, and it is thinner & lighter in construction than the 1st variation. It was always threaded for a small-shank barrel. It is the weakest of the three.
The last low-wall frame type (3rd variation) is found on the Model 87 Winder Muskets only. It is a panel-sided high-wall frame milled to a low-wall. It is threaded for a large-shank barrel only, and the upper & lower tangs were left unchanged. Of the three, it is the strongest.
On the 1st and 3rd variation low-wall frames, the forend and butt stock from a high-wall can be interchanged. The stocks for a 2nd variation low-wall are smaller and will not fit any other frame type.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
8 comments