doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion Classic & Custom Single Barreled Sporting Rifles @ doublegunshop.com Low-Wall Question

Hello to all.
Just found this site (Thanks, Whitey). It seems like a lot of familiar folks hang out here.
I posted this question on another site (which shall go un-named) and thought maybe someone here could help. I lucked into a Low-Wall that originally started as a Lightweight Carbine, with the "saddle ring" hole on the left side and the groove in the top of the receiver ring like the #3 Ballards. It's been changed from its original .32 (WCF?) chambering to .22 rimfire with a Buhmiller barrel and a Schuetzen-style buttstock. The breechblock has been reworked to rimfire from centerfire and overstamped from "32" to "22". How common were these actions and should I just keep it as a shooter or try to put it back closer to original? (Musket buttstock, 16" round bbl.,non-schnable forend)
Thanks
SteveConner

Steve, I'll look at my Winchester Single Shot books tomorrow morning and see if I can find out an answer to your question about how common/rare those actions were (Is it a flatspring or a coiled spring action? Aprox. SN?).

Just my opinion, but if I were you, I'd just keep it as a nice .22 with some history and a barrel by a great maker, unless it is in truly lousy shape.

You are going to have a heck of a time finding original Carbine parts, I suspect (a Winder musket stock will have an inletted sling swivel base and screw holes--very hard to rework to carbine style). I have built several 1885s from parts over the years and never have seen either a carbine barrel, stock, or forend for sale in about 50 years of looking. Even if you could find the parts, you would still have a "parts gun," with little collector value (or at least value not even close to an original carbine). And as a shooter, a .32 WCF carbine is an interesting little gun, but not good for much (Yours may well have done time in Oz as a "Stinger"!).

It is sad that this rare gun was "mutilated and mutated" but more fooling with it won't really bring it back. I have, as I said, put together several lowalls from parts (back when there WERE parts) and and none of them were more than fun hunting/informal target guns when I was done. (In my defense, Winchester collectors, I always started with SERIOUS train wrecks....my .25-20 WCF has parts from SEVEN rifles, plus some homemade and aftermarket parts).

Mr. Conner

There is no reason not to use the action however you see fit. As was pointed out, even a restoration to original would still be a "parts" gun and of no more market value than any other configuration you might choose to build it into.

In addition, the original carbines had 15.5" barrels. In that they were all made before '98 they have the curious distinction of not being a firearm under Federal law, but are classified as a "destructive weapon" or some such nonsense and require special licensing and government permission to own.

The bottom line is that you cannot legally restore it to its original configuration. Methinks you have a genuine "guilt free" action and can do with it as you please.

Glenn

Glenn is correct.

The last thing you want is have the gun classified AOW under the law. If it does not have a tax stamp currently, you can not get one. If it was originally so classified, it must have a tax stamp. It can only be transferred by a FFL III. While the collector book value may go up, the ability to sell it shrinks.

I went through this over a gun and finally decided the hassle just was not worth it.

Pete

Glenn and Pete make a very important point about the NFA status of the 15" Lightweight Carbines. Restoration to original status may be WORSE than impractical.

As for the rifle you have, I believe the only thing that shows it once was a Lightweight Carbine is the saddle ring stud hole. The "grooved" reciever ring is common on early lowalls. My quick perusal of John Campbell's books didn't reveal when the lowall recievers stopped having the groove; he simply says it was dropped in later production.

Likewise, Campbell doesn't give any production number for the Lightweight Carbines (that I could find). They are not common in the US, that's for sure. However, that may just mean that many were worn out or lost in Australia, where they seem to have been most popular, or elsewhere. They were the cheapest Winchester centerfires for quite a while, and probably many were worn out in sheep camps, by trappers, and by farmers. When they were reduced by use and neglect to rusty wrecks, many were probably converted to .22 Hornet and other varmint calibers or to .22 RF like yours. Once the NFA declared these "weapons of mass destruction" or whatever they are presently classified, some of the survivors probably promptly lost their short barrels for "legal" length ones, too.

I doubt if most of us (me certainly) would be able to ACCURATELY determine a Lightweight Carbine reciever if shown just the reciever. The unique sling stud hole would just be an "extra hole by Bubba" to most, and would just make the reciever that much more likely to be used for a parts gun. Sad, but I think true.

If ever a rifle "got no respect," it was the Win 1885 in the 1940s and 1950s.....I FOUND one of mine (a Highwall) and was GIVEN another for free (also a Highwall).

Mr. Conner:

Howsomever, if you are inclined to restore it to the carbine it once was, there is no reason not to do so. Just put a 16-1/8" barrel on it and all is right with the world.

Glenn

Thanks for all of the replies. I think I'll keep it as a shooter for now. It should work for some inexpensive offhand practice, with the cost of lead the way it is. At the price I paid, I assumed the barrel was pitted but it's very pretty inside. First Buhmiller barrel I've seen. I can see how he got his reputation.
Thanks to all,
Steve Conner