[dwcars]

I'm thinking about having an 1885 low-wall Winchester's barrel relined and rechambered to a more modern and usable caliber*. I'm told that the steel used back then won't stand too much pressure and will cause damage to the rifle.
I want to know exactly what part of the rifle will fail. I'd also like to know whether the replacement bolt made by MVA out of modern steel will resolve the problem. I want a caliber that will have components for reloading way out into the future.

*Current bore and chambering are .25RF, and ammo just isn't available.

 

[grcsat]

Your action should stand up to a few different cartridges, 22 Hornet, 22 Jet, 218 Bee.
For centre rife, .25-20, 256 Magnum, 351 Magnum.
Personally I would go with the 22 Hornet.

 

[LIKTOSHOOT]

^^^^ +1

 

[TRAP55]

Receiver cracks. The early receivers were CC hardened, about 1901 they started heat treating for smokeless cartridges. Your looking at about a 20K PSI for a CC receiver, and 35K PSI for a heat treat.

 

[Grizzley1]

If you can give Trap the serial number he can tell you the year it was made.

 

[TRAP55]

I think on his other post it was an 1892?

 

[joe45c]

I think on his other post it was an 1892?

Yep it was.

 

[AZ Nimrod]

What is the collector’s value of the OP’s rifle? Before he destroys that, he should get it appraised - he may be able to sell it and buy exactly what he wants with the proceeds. Or not, but worth the effort regardless.

I realize the OP likely knows this, but wanted to say it in public with the hope of saving more historical pieces - they won’t be made again and once modified they are “ruined” for collectors.


.

 

[tuckerd1]

I couldn't help it. My OCD took over.

 

[Dem27]

Well if it was me I probably would go with 22mag or even 22lr. That way you are going to get a lot more shooting out of it. I’ve had several old single shots RFs , redone in CFs. Like 22Jet, 357mag and some wildcats. I would have shot them a lot more had I just done 22mg or 22rf.

 

[mudman35962]

Receiver cracks. The early receivers were CC hardened, about 1901 they started heat treating for smokeless cartridges. Your looking at about a 20K PSI for a CC receiver, and 35K PSI for a heat treat.

good to know.

rick
i have one i have kicked around the idea of converting.

 

[Hawg]

What is the collector’s value of the OP’s rifle? Before he destroys that, he should get it appraised - he may be able to sell it and buy exactly what he wants with the proceeds. Or not, but worth the effort regardless.

I realize the OP likely knows this, but wanted to say it in public with the hope of saving more historical pieces - they won’t be made again and once modified they are “ruined” for collectors.

It just makes the ones left in original condition worth more. I've done my share of driving up the prices on battle dressed Mausers, Springfields etc.

 

[Old School or Nothing]

If its a 20k reciever the 32-20 or 38spl would be safe.

 

[barnetmill1]

If its a 20k reciever the 32-20 or 38spl would be safe.

What was the pressure in the old highspeed 32-20 rifle loads. My point is that standard loads are likely under 20k, but not all 32-20 and maybe not 38 spl are for sure under 20k.

 

[TRAP55]

Sammi specs 32/20 at 16,000 CUP max, and .38 special under 17,000 PSI max. There's no conversion from PSI to CUP, but both are under 20,000 PSI.

 

[GRR]

I'm thinking about having an 1885 low-wall Winchester's barrel relined and rechambered to a more modern and usable caliber*. I'm told that the steel used back then won't stand too much pressure and will cause damage to the rifle.
I want to know exactly what part of the rifle will fail. I'd also like to know whether the replacement bolt made by MVA out of modern steel will resolve the problem. I want a caliber that will have components for reloading way out into the future.

*Current bore and chambering are .25RF, and ammo just isn't available.

I own and shoot a modern Browning 1885(bought it in 1996). I pour and reload for it and it has never seen a factory round. Now that i have puffed up my chest. He he. The thought of ruining such a historical rifle when a equilivent or better suited on is available needs real consideration. I understand that this is your rifle and if i am out of line, i apologize. Glenn.

 

[mudman35962]

i got to stick my nose in this one. .32-20 is a lot more fun than a .38, rifle or hand gun. just my opinion. and yes i speak from experience. it is true that my taste in reloading and shooting has evolved from hand guns to long guns.

rick