LRF,
John Campbell quotes B. McDaniel of South Lyon, Michigan, "the hardness of Single-Shot Receivers seems to be 'all over the map'". He goes on to explain why he agrees with that statement and McDaniel's qualifications.

Later, Campbell also lists the steels used by Winchester in this era and none of them sound like steels we would associate with modern gun steels. I would guess the the Winchester and Brownchester guns are made with 4140 or similar modern alloy.

I'm not sure how you can determine the geometry of one of those more modern low walls from a photo, but they are supposed to be quite different. They do not interest me. I do not bother looking at them.

As for a forged action Ballard being inferior to a low wall - that's just wrong. Ballard, No 5s and 5 1/2s (Pacific and Montana, respectively) were chambered for large and long .45s . I own and shoot one myself. It is not the strongest action, but the block/receiver/barrel geometry is such that is safe. No one with an ounce of qualifications as a gunsmith would put a .45-70 or bigger in a low wall, but they would all put a .45 on a Pacific or Montana.

Boltman, the thickness of the block at its top has nothing to do with strength since there is nothing behind it but air. Putting low wall parts in a highwall and vice versa mean nothing with respect to strength of the action, nor to the dimensions of the wood to metal fit, except with the potential to turn one's buttstock into a pile of toothpicks. That is not being debated here. The stock will hold.

If you compare a paneled (thin side) highwall to that particular low wall, look at how much steel has been removed. Not very much at all. Hollowing the stock would compensate for that much steel easily. This is the ONLY difference between the paneled highwall and the paneled low wall. But then look again at WHERE that the steel was removed. Every bit of it was steel that supports the block under recoil. So, for minuscule weight savings, the strength of the action takes a great hit.

The low wall was made for one reason and that was the ease of loading and unloading small, low-energy cartridges which are difficult to navigate through the trough of a highwall. It is not about weight it is about convenience. The .38-56 needs no such convenience. It is basically a lever gun round (and a poor one at that) for rifles such as the 1886.

I do miss Joe Harz and Whitey. Joe would not be impressed with that .38-56 either.

_________
BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan)

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]