doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion Classic & Custom Single Barreled Sporting Rifles @ doublegunshop.com Modern vs. original 'Walls?

Ive often wondered if there are as many post-Winchester sporting 1885s out there as there were originals made? (I think you would have to count the "Winder Muskets" as part of the original production, since so many of them were converted into sporting rifles). The continued popularity of the 1885 design continues to amaze me!

Among the "latter-day" 'Walls I think you should include:

C. Sharps, Cumberland Arms, "Winchester" (Miroku), "Browning" (Miroku), Ballard Arms, Uberti, and a couple of other American makers I can't remember (one is in Idaho and makes very close copies, but I can't remember his name; I have one of his catalogs "someplace").

I realize that purists wouldn't consider some of these rifles "real" 'Walls, because they have various modifications, but I think they count because they handle the same as some of various Winchester versions of the 1885. And Winchester certainly didn't stick with just one design--they made innovations, too.

Can anybody remember the American manufacturers I can't remember? Any foreign makers I missed?

Do YOU consider all of these "real" 1885s, or just the true clones whose parts interchange? Or are you just plain uninterested in any latter-day "knock-off?

Answering the mail here:
IMO, there are Winchesters - then all the rest; same goes for 1911 pistols, there are Colts - then all the rest.

No slight meant to all the rest of the makers only my thoughts and opinion

Falling Block Works Is one
Wickliffe is another

Mike

And certainly you're entitled to that opinion, which I know is shared by many! (I assume you don't consider "Winchesters" made by Miroku as real Winchesters....).

The maker in Idaho I was forgetting is Meecham; one of the others is Falling Block Works. But I suspect I'm still missing somebody, and also would still like to know if there were other foreign "1885" makers besides the two I cite. Pedersoli? Were any foreign copies made during the US Winchester manufacture of the 1885?

And does anybody think that the number of clones, take-offs and other 1885 knock offs made since 1920 equals the number (around 140,000) made by Winchester before that?

The best ones will be rolling off the benches at Montana Vintage Arms inside of a month. they will be parts-interchangeable with originals. Two are coming to me (only one will be mine).

I do have a Ballard Highwall or Ball-Wall as they are sometimes called. I like it very much and forget it is not an original. It is very nice.

Good to know! I'm not sure if C. Sharps makes the interchangeability claim or not, but my Hiwall from them does interchange with my '90s original Hiwall, except for the barrel (my original Hiwall .38-40 has a Lowall #1 barrel with the small shank).

One of the things I DO appreciate about the modern variations is the strengthened "Low Wall" variation by Miroku, which allows high intensity rounds to be chambered in the lighter weight action. Most of us don't have a horse to lug a Hiwall around on, and many aren't fit or strong enough to lug it far ourselves. Those "Winchester/Blowning" Low Walls in .243 and .260 and .223 do get hunted a lot. I suspect the High Walls in traditional calibers like .45-70 less so, especially if they have the traditional length and weight barrels.

Mike A.
I agree with you, entirely, about the high strength new "low walls". I always thought low walls make nicer rifles. Another advantage, you can build a nice rifle without breaking down an original Winchester. BTY, I still prefer rimmed cartridges even if the new extractors work with rimless.
Mike

Mike, I agree with "all of the above." I once talked with a rabid 'Wall user in Saratoga Springs, NY and he told me "Highwalls for target; lowalls for hunting."

At the time I didn't get it--I associated lowalls with small game hunting only, and the only hiwall I had that I could carry comfortably any distance was my rather unusual "lightweight" .38-40 mentioned above. Then I got a standard plain lowall .44-40, and later a .38-40, both with 28" #1 barrels, and discovered that they make excellent woods deer rifles when loaded with loads the equivalent of the old "WHV" ctgs. And you can pack 'em a country mile!

Also share your distrust of rimless extractors in single shots. I guess it's pure prejudice since German, H&R, Ruger, and "Blowning/Winchester" rimless extractors work OK, as does the one on my Valmet/Savage .222/12 combination gun. I still like rimmed ctgs better for single shots, just conservative and set in my ways, I guess.....

I guess I'm the odd guy out. I see no reason for a low wall in any caliber that an original low wall can't handle. Up to 25-20 or similar I see a place and purpose to them. But once you hit the .38-55 family and above, WHY a lowwall?

As for weight the differences are pretty negligible. For instance, my .38-72 highwall with a 32" barrel weighs in at about 8# even as I recall. Even a wimp like me can tote that all day. highpower low walls are a solution in search of a problem if you ask me.

Sorry about the poor quality photo.

I've always looked at the various single shot rifles as three groups. The originals, and their reworked versions. And the clones; with the clones being two separate groups. The first group being high quality clones that equal the originals, plus interchange parts. The 2nd group being clones that don't quite look like originals, don't interchange parts, or are substandard in many ways.
I've owned a few clones of various American single shot rifles, and mostly pass them along after a short period of time. Either because they weren't up to snuff, or I wanted an original. I have very high regard for the clones that are made to original specs, and look like the originals. But not much use for those that don't pass muster, or look odd next to an original.
I had pretty much decided I wasn't going to own any modern remakes of old singles, but then recently came into a modern Ballard remake from when they were in Cody, Wy. I had the gun at my home for several weeks, and couldn't stop admiring the quality, and overall appearance! I'd take one of my original Ballards out of the safe, and compare the two. I just couldn't find anything short of the rollstamp on the receiver, that was different from my originals. I finally broke down and bought it, with no regrets. It's a stunning example of what a clone should be!
Excuse my crummy picture!