I am 72 years young. Got my first cap and ball I was 14 years old. Found it in a old fellows up stairs room. A original 1851 36 colt. His father took it off a union officer. I never had good luck with the conical bullets. Round balls shot better. I have all of the reproductions even a revolving rifle. I shoot black powder all the time. Rifles and pistols.
I prefer Swaged round balls. I've never had good luck shooting conicals from any of my Black Powder revolvers. I own all the colt repros except for one.
I agree. In my old Hawken Flintlock, my 1841 Harper's Ferry 'Mississippi", my three Remington .44 New Army's and my old Walker. Nothing seems to be as accurate as the good old round ball. I have seen an original Walker and the Uberti is amazingly close with respect to it's reproduction of the 1847 classic. I knew a person when I was real young who actually shot and used an original and said that it was not uncommon for a Walker to burst a chamber when loaded with 60 grains of 3f so most never loaded over 50 grains. The vintage conical he had as a part of his civil war collection of things to me appeared to be smaller then what I see today . I'm just a couple years younger then you and the person I knew was a friend of my grandfather when I was a kid. Back then I actually got to shoot a real 1860 Henry in .44 rimfire. Now, those rounds alone are worth a lot and you can't buy an original 1860 Henry for less then the cost of a new Lexus. I have an old Uberty Henry and that thing is now like $2,000. My father's family is from the Gettysburg area so I did get a chance to see a lot of old firearms and my one cousin still has our family's original Springfield rifle from the Civil war. I only have reproductions but I do love to use them. Do you still have the original 1851? I would love to have an original Remington or Colt. My oldest originals are a 1896 30-40 Krag along with an 1898 Krag. You treat them with respect and load them conservatively and they will shoot forever.
The walker toes the line between "just plain cool" and "it clearly sucks" very well. It's badass, but so obviously eclipsed by better designs within just a few years, and the results of this power test show just how little gain you get for all that extra weight and price. We need a Paul Harrel style meat target comparison between a fully loaded walker and a fully loaded 1851 Navy and 1860 Army.
I learned that black powder made with sodium nitrate is “blasting powder”! Just thought you might want to know! I enjoy your channel!! Sorry I messed up the comment 😊
I think the correct statement is that with a round ball at a 60 grain charge the Colt Walker was the highest velocity in a repeating handgun until the advent of the 357 mag
that the true statement n if this guy knew everything about black powder he would of said this but he didn't n also the reason why you can't get no more than 40 grain is because it's a remodel of the 3rd generation dragoon not first n that means the cylinder is shorter for the 3rd generation cause ppl was blowing up the first generation with putting more than 60 grains of powder
cause when your in danger or shooting that gun n runs out I don't think your going to properly measure out 60s grain of powder everytime so what happen is they would do 70 or 75 cause they were getting shot at too n jus stuff it down the cylinder n pray it did blow up if he watched any forgotten weapons videos on the dragoon he would know this n wouldn't act so stupid
What on earth are you talking about. The walker and the dragoon are different yes, but He is shooting a replica of a walker. Not a dragoon. If you would pay attention to any of those forgotten weapons videos you would know this. So everything you wrote makes no sense. we are all now dumber for having read it!!! I pray you are drunk for this we can At least understand.
I absolutely love BP guns but I'm not in the USA. Here the only option for propellant is pretty-homemade pretty-irregular but true black powder and it compresses very well. I shoot my Uberti Colt Army 1860 with .45ACP casings full of 3F (28-30 grains in theory), filler on top and .454 round balls. It leaves good space in the chambers and the shots are powerful and accurate. Awesome channel, greetings from Argentina!
I had an early Walker repro in 1975. I had to ream the cylinders slightly to get the right size ball loaded. It was poorly made. I was able to load 55 grains behind a round ball. Recently picked a new one but havent fussed with it yet. Your well done video has motivated me to test it.
I have a reproduction Walker (Uberti) purchased in the white from Cabela's in 2004. I nornally load it with .454 round ball and 45 grains of 777 and have nearly enough room for a second ball.
Well everyone I mentioned in the video has a Uberti but two of my friends have a ASM and a second Gen Colt and 60gr is the max. I would say they are within 2gr of each other. As for the Original, who knows.
We get into 1F to 4 F as well as the substitutes. While I am still working on it, clearly 777 x 3F has a lot more bang for the measurement than 3F True Black Powder. Like reloading, sure we can do volume, but you weigh that volue first, tune it and then you have a fairly consistent weight (which is what the manuals use) - but, some measure better than others, long grain stick powders are much harder and less consistent. While a rifle will not see it, a pistol can vary a lot, 9mm and smaller more so. I also use a Chrnograph each time to get an idea of how hot that load is. @@Everythingblackpowder
@Everythingblackpowder For what's its worth, I obtained an Uberti about 20yrs ago, and was quite disappointed as it grouped very poorly, regardless of powder charge. I also found that large quantities of power often stated, did not fit in my gun, as you demonstrated. Upon inspection by a gunsmith, he stated that most modern replicas have undersized cylinders for mis-guided safety, and upon slugging my bore and cylinders, this was very much the case. It cost as much as the gun itself, but he offered to ream out the cylinders to .002" over bore diameter, which I went for. The gun grouped considerably better with both rounds and conical, but what I really noticed was how much more powder it was able to hold. 60gr actual Goex FFFg with rounds became easy to load, and the Lee Precision 200gr conical (which has a much shorter nose than what you were experimenting with), could load, with some effort but not rod bending, 55gr FFFg. The gun shoots most accurately more in the range of 40gr, but 50s and even 60s became possible. I do not remember how much material was removed from the cylinders to achieve 0.002" over bore, but with the way the powder capacity increased, it must have been quite a bit.
I agree with you on this (overall) as the original charge for the Walkers (as we are told) had to be reduced because of the metallurgy at the time had cylinders blow apart. Again… this is word of mouth issues so “who knows”… no way on 90 grains of 3F Swiss and a conical… I do not have an original Walker to verify this… but you can’t do 90 grains of 3F and seat a 200 grain LEE 90234 in a 45-70 BFR cylinder… just for reference.
@@Everythingblackpowder after watching you video I removed my 45-70 BFR cylinder, use blue painters tape over the bottom of the cylinder and measured 90 grains by volume… yada yada yada… I did not want to hammer on the bullets lol… I had the same results (just now) in my Uberti Walker that you did with 45 & 50 grains with the before mentioned Lee 200 grain RF bullet. I guess I just do not need to “compensate” so I am happy with 35 grains of 3F Swiss and my cast conicals. Thank you again for your video… I got me thinking… that is always dangerous lol
Somebody: "The Colt walker was the most powerful handgun until the 357 Magnum!" Me laughing in French 1777 .69 caliber pistol loaded with 64 caliber round ball and 110 grains of powder 😂
@@daddski1 I've only heard people describe the walker as the most powerful handgun until the .357 magnum. Even in the video, the NRA "historian" said handgun, not revolver.
@@dancortes3062that's for a few reasons. 1st the charge was never to be the monsters that people use. It think I read once it suppose to be 20gr. You don't even want to know the loads I've done in the past with pistols.
I have an Uberti replica of the Walker that I've had since the mid-1980s and it's a cool pistol. It gets a lot of attention at the range, because most of the folks there with their 9m plastic playthings have absolutely no idea what it is, they just know it's HUGE and makes a lot of smoke. I like it, a lot. But let's face it, the pistols that came out after it, the Dragoons, are just much better pistols from a shooting perspective. The automatic flop-down lever on a Walker is a PITA. And Gus McRae aside, if I tried to wear a pair of them on a gunbelt, I'd constantly be tripping over said belt, 'cause it would never stay anywhere near my waist, the belt would have to have its own suspenders. That's why they hung them from the saddle horn. But I like it anyway.
Just wanted to add to I have an old Walker that I picked up somewhere in the late seventies or around 1980. I guess for liability reasons they must be making the cylinder shorter on the newer guns because my old Walker I can load safely 60 grams of powder and a round ball 457 diameter, nice and tight and I can hit milk jugs at 300 yards with it, that's not to brag that's just saying that's what it can do, now I can load 50 g of powder and one conical bullet from original Colt design which my ojive is smaller than what yours appears to be in the videos, that's probably why you're having to shave end of your bullet off give it a semi wadcutter effect😊, but needless to say this is what my old Italian reproduction Walker is capable of. Keep up the good work I enjoy the videos 👍
Can you insert a rod into one of the chambers cylinder to measure the depth? I'd be curious to see if they're drilled at different depths between Pietta, Uberti, ASM, original Colt spec, etc.
rober your quite the comedian.......your gonna get a lot of folks buying walkers to go jumper hunting which should cause a rapid increase in their population.....but they will be cursing you when they find out that it's impossible to hit a house at 300 yards and not very likely to hit a jumper at 100 yards
I have 2 Walkers an Uberti and a ASM. Both use about 35 grains (Goex). I have never pushed it. But If I wished to, I would take the cylinder out and put it on an external cylinder press; I built one using a old Beer Capper. It can compress considerable more then a Colt loading lever.
I'm not an avid youtube gun content consumer, just happened to see this in my feed and find old West guns interesting. What really caught my ear was your correct use of "exaggerate". Damn, I had no idea how good it would feel to hear that. You know what I mean, I'm sure. Thank you! :)
I like your numbers, Jake. And your assessment of the power available in the Walker. And as a fan of the .45 Colt, I'll be working up some Holy Black loads for CAS in my clones. Most of my shooting is with that newfangled "smoke less" junk, which is easier to clean and I'm lazy, but I do love the fireball and smoke of a nice powerful BP round! Thanks for the video! 👍
@@EverythingblackpowderI've noticed there are 160 grain bullets available for 45 colt, is there some big disadvantage I'm missing there that makes them less desirable? The bullet can't go "too fast" right? or can it, does it overcome the rifling or destabilize? Just curious if you have any thoughts/insight on that?
I love that dragoon conical. Hits like a freight train. Was glad to see you use it. You were very fair in your assessment of the walkers power. Thanks for this video. As far as 50 grains of powder goes maybe with a round ball but never with that massive conical you were using. Thanks for showing that part as well.
Great video! I think you did a very accurate job of testing the big Walker. When I first heard the Walker vs 357 Magnum story I was suitably impressed because I really like the Walker for its historical value, but was never really concerned about the revolvers power as I'm not a "cult" Walker guy. One thing that seriously disturbed me on your video, however, was the "lecture" given by the NRA museum curator stating 90 grains of powder will fit in the Walker. You couldn't put 90 grains in the cylinder hole even if you used no ball. For a museum curator to make that statement is outrageous! and does not inspire confidence in his creditability. If I want pistol power I'll use my S&W model 29. When I want to shoot for smoke, noise and historical fun I'll shoot the Walker.
I’m glad you brought up Dustin’s video. His walker paper cartridge kit for the eras gone conicals call for 40gr of 3f. I’ve had no problem loading those. 45gr of loose powder barely fits in my walker like yours. It’s so close you sometimes have too much. I have only tried schuetzen and goex. I usually save swiss for cartridge guns or ‘precision’ shooting. Great demonstration. I never thought of the different powders compressing different.
I read that the army used 230 grain bullets in the 45 colt cartridge then later 230 grain bullet in the 45 schofield cartridge. Id like to know how that compares to a 230 grain bullet in the 44 walker. Also, some original cartridges from the 1800 have been cut open and found they were loaded with 4F powder. ... so many variables, it will be difficult to explore all the possibilities. As always, i liked the video.
I'd read in a book exactly your opening statement and had killing range of up to 40 yards and was as powerful as a rifle. The model of the rifle was not mentioned. The book, however, is "Empire of the Summer Moon" by S.C. Gwynne, a fantastic book whether the author is accurate or not in his assessment of the Walker-Colt/Colt-Walker.
Your on the right track. But you flogging g the difference between “then” and “now”. As you know from your journey making black powder there is a world of difference in power, burn rate etc between your first batch and you process today which rivals commercial products. Back in 1847 powder was like your first batch. Slow burn and less power than today. There was no “Fg” grade system. That was introduced in 1881 when DuPont formalized the A, B, C grades of blasting and cannon powders and the formerly “fine” sporting powder was screened to the “F” series we use today. The “g” designation was added sometime in the mid-1880’s to indicate powder tumbled and glazed with graphite. Still there are references as early as 1842 specifying the procurement of “fine” powder for military small arms. Today we associate this with the grades we are accustomed to. But then “Fine” was a quality descriptor used in general sales. Something on the order of quality. Good-better-best-fine. Fine being the top of the heap and quite subjective. So. In your store you might say “this I’d best brown paper”. I might say “I want fine brown paper”. You’d say “ ok it’s fine”. And so it was. If we both agree. Very very subjective. Add this to the metallurgy of the time. Radical improvements were made in iron and steel between 1847 and 1861. The walkers illustrate this. Those guns are iron. Not steel. And iron so…..variable in quality as to be scary today. This is the root of the many blown cylinders. I’m collections today walkers are like hens teeth. Of the original 1100 made about 300 survive. Minimal cost for one today is $100k and up. Up a lot! Of the surviving 300 it’s estimated that 200 had blown cylinders and had replacement cylinders installed by colt in the early 1850’s. By that point colt had acquired a better grade of iron thus improving those cylinders materially. A point to remember. Powder quality was also improving as metallurgy improved at the colt works. The walker replica you have today is not exactly like the originals. The most glaring detail is the lack of a forcing cone. The original walker cylinder was about 5/16 inch longer than the average reproduction of today. Lacking a barrel extension aka forcing cone within the frame. I believe Ian pointed this out in a video years ago. This is what added to the difficulty seating conicals in the original gun. The first reproductions from Italy and Spain were made by reverse engineering original 1851’s for the most part. Not so with the walker. No one was going to ship a walker to Spain in the late 1950’s ….not with them being worth close to $100k even then. So. The first reproductions were based upon dimensions provided. “ like that 1851 we sent you, except the cylinder is this long. The barrel that long. See the picture. And in providing those dimensions people like Val Forget were very aware of the ….explosive… history of that gun. And the common assumption that it was the extra large capacity of the chambers that was the cause. Not the poor quality of the metal, despite the poor quality of the powder. So steel was of course specified on the reproductions. But in addition a forcing cone was added, just as colt added a forcing cone to the “dragoon” to adapt a shorter cycle set to the frame, which was also shortened to become the “first model dragoon” as it’s called today. So. In short, the reproductions we have access to today have noticeably shorter cylinders and frames than the originals. This also complicated the fabrication of “faked” originals. I believe the NRA museum did a video illustrating such fakes built on Italian parts. The tip-off being a forcing cone among other detail. So the originals could digest a 50-60 grain charge and seat a conical only with great difficulty, the upside down seating being one work around as you point out. The dragoon represents the evolution of the walker. The first step being a shorter cylinder limiting powder to 45 grains at most. By 1861 this evolution was down to 30 grains. And through this all iron segued into steel, and finally “better” steel in the 1861. And powder evolved such that the “good” powder of 1847 became the “fine” powder of 1861. One must ask how many original 1847’s ruptured a cylinder when some lad stuffed it full of “fine” powder in 1862? The fire at Colts destroyed many of those records. So you bit off a complicated chew. But you gnawed upon it quite well! I hope this explains why you could not quite close the loop on contemporary accounts with what we glean today from our reproductions. Fox out
Something to note is that some people take the cylinder out and load on a stand with a ramrod and hammer, even on these colts. Karls powder looks just like the pyrodex p I use.
I recently come across your channel and subscribed! I used to be into black powder shooting and really want to get back into it. I never had a Walker so I don’t have experience with one, but I used to have a new model army 58 Remington, and I remember loading 45 grains of goex into it. The catch being I’d load 30 grain, ram it, load 15 more, ram that, then load a .451 round ball over the top. It was a fight to get it seated, and some times I remember shaving the balls to clear the forcing cone. I didn’t have a chronograph so I dunno how fast they were, but it sure felt powerful lol Great channel!
1) Having met karl of Forgotten Weapons in person, I can safely say I wouldn't trust his opinion on if the sky is blue. 2) Not all conical bullets are the same shape; the ones you're using have a pretty sharp ogive angle and are therefore leaving a lot of air space to the front of the cylinder. While yours may be the correct bullet for the period, it is entirely plausible that there are people out there using modern cast bullets of the same bullet weight, but with a blunter ogive (or even a flat-point spitzer) that leaves less room "to the side of the nose" at the front of the chamber, therefore allowing more space to the rear- I can easily see how that could account for an extra 5 or maybe even 10 grains beyond what you're able to load.
Thanks but everyone I mentioned in the video was using the same 260gr 3rd model dragoon bullet I was using. There’s all kinds of conicals nowadays that are better choices than these.
Karl’s “In Range” Ian is “Forgotten Weapons” . Funny once he or whoever started going off on everyone in comments white knighting his Tubby or Trans friends. You don’t see the collaboration anymore.
@@dustyak79 Don't know anything about white knights or Trans friends of either, but Ian (Forgotten Weapons) stepping away from InRange was because Forgotten Weapons was taking off so much to the point that with the amount of traveling he was doing visiting auctions, museums, private collections, etc. Not just in the US, but literally all over the world; he didn't have enough time left to devote to InRange or deal with the scheduling conflicts it might cause so he stepped back to focus on FW which left Karl as the sole creator of InRange. Ian's PRETTY damn busy, with months on the road filming FW content, at wife at home, the WWSD rifles, his Headstamp publishing company making and printing books, etc. Love Ian and he'll be the first to admit he gets things wrong sometimes, never had an issue with Karl but at the same time I haven't watched more than a few InRange vids since Ian departed. I don't know enough about the intricacies of Black or substitute powder weapons or a Bias against Karl, but in all the videos I've seen EBP seems like a to the point no nonsense (Unless it's joking around) kind of guy. So with the way he actually went into detail, did his own comparisons, and broke it all down... it definitely seems like there's something off with Karl's version of events. Whether innocently or maliciously done I don't know, so won't claim to. Just wanted to point out the reason Ian left, which he himself explained in a video. Could he of been lying or omitting additional issues that caused him to split? Sure, that's always possible everytime collaborations end. But AFAIK Karl hasn't developed a grudge against Ian, and Ian only left to focus on and have time for his own business and channel. I am left wondering why Karl faked/fibbed his results and video though, it's not like he needed to. That was one of the great things with Ian co-hosting, he might agree with Karl's results, or he might point out something Karl didn't consider, a prospective he hadn't thought about, or outright disagree with him all together. Now there's no one to balance Karl out, or tell him "No, you're wrong and here's why I think so".
@@pyro1047 I’m sure it mostly had to do with Forgotten weapons taking the center stage. My comment was kinda a jab as I’ve watched forgotten weapons and in range for a long time and like most once Ian left I was soon to follow . Karl went extra on everyone, basically you also had to follow other social accounts to see why I gave some of my jabs and where they came from over the years. His Tubby friend that sinistral rifleman gets tons of negative comments about his weight and him and Karl like to respond to each of them with the same generic Like to see you shoot type comment. His Trans friends I took issue with solely because he was echoing the “trans Genocide” Hyperbole. Oh also once he got involved with the brownells retro AR he forgot he also complained about how much a Colt SP1 costed when they had a limited run. Yet brownells was only a little bit cheaper but still drastically more than the sum of all parts that used to be sold individually in the catalog.
Video was FINE! Did NOT suck! My Dad had a black powder, probably 45-70 government, single shot "Spanish American War" rifle, that was still safe to shoot. (The barrel still had some lands in it!) That thing shot about seven feet of flames & smoke. My Dad, who was an excellent shot, said it shot about one foot low and one foot wide at 100 yards. That thing was fun to shoot. If you shot it at night, it would spew dragon flames! So I am thinking about black powder rifles & pistols, just for the fun of it.
Yeah, that loading lever got bent alright. It was both bent and really f@#$ed up! 😮 Time to either bend it back or get the parts replaced. Hope that you didn't crack those grips when giving it a pounding. Love the videos, keep them coming!
Carl was using a finger tip measure. The pad of his finger would reduce the powder charge to a minor degree. What if they were using a hollow base conical? (Which I doubt) They also may have been loading the cylinder outside the pistol in a loading tool ( I am thinking of the screw down type that loads all six at once). I am a Cult Walker person. I love the things, but DO NOT practice nor recommend cramming max powder into it. I ultimately ended up using a reduced charge that would not blow down the load lever, enough of a filler to seat the ball at the very top of the cylinder, and enjoy much more accuracy and fun. Great content on your site!!
Very informative, reasonably, and fairly discussed and demonstrated concerning the claims of others. Especially liked you added the next most consistent platform, the 1873, even with reduced strength powder. I am still working on getting around to black powder and realize I am missing out on another era of historical firearm platforms. Needed to follow up on this video after it was brought up on the 11BangBang channel gathering. Thank You sir.
Great video. I have a reproduction colt Walker. It’s brutal. You are not going to do conceal carry with a colt Walker. At pistol range, it can open you up like a melon. It’s size, appearance and presence is great for deterrence in open carry. I have heard that there was a conversion kit used by the colt Walker. Don’t know much about it or the shells it used. I also have a colt single action in 45 colt. It’s also a powerful gun. At the end of the day, I love these guns. Both in open carry are intimidating which leads to deterrence. My last hand gun is an older 1911. It’s also a handful. I love my hand guns. Does it matter what the stopping energy is? How fast the slug flys? At a certain point, it doesn’t matter. Each of these is going to do a massive amount of trauma against your perpetrator. You can’t go wrong with these guns. I am not a fan of glocks. It’s an appearance thing. Glocks work great, just not my cup of tea. I use the same 458 ball in my Walker as I do in my 50 cal hawkin. Same double measure of 3F GOex. Never figured out how many grains my measure has. I think your empirical work was excellent and I may look into it as now I am curious. In short, the colt Walker is an extremely intimidating hand gun in open carry. Is it the purported cannon it’s been hyped up to? I don’t think so nor do I think it’s relevant. Just it’s presence is enough and the best case of self defense is when you don’t need to pull the trigger.
It is nice to see a level headed and logical conclusion the the Walker debate, I also think that the various comments made by "so called experts" who have probably never even fired a Walker less than helpful on this subject, to put yourself on a pedestal and state these ridiculous "facts" is not helpful, people are going to be quoting these pseudo facts as if they have some base in reality, your tests here prove the real situation, as did your tests getting 40 Grn in a Colt 45 case (even though it was not a folded head case), people are very quick to quote these "facts" that suit their own theories, but you test things for yourself. Well done! Chris B.
I have a Walker and several Colts and clones 1873. I have always suspected that the Walker was overrated as far as it being the "44 Magnum of its day". Just observing penetration results with similar charges and bullet weights. Thanks for the chronographical data and other info. Interesting about the difference in compresibility of different powder manufacturers. Makes sense but never thought about it. I subscribed and glad I found your channel.
it is possible Uberti did slightly change some dimensions to avoid having their guns used to make a fake copy. I had a Uberti Walker for a while but sold it,because it was too expensive to use. Not the gun it was the horse needed to carry it. Interesting gun from an historical aspect but about as useful as carbonated buttermilk.
That's very interesting. You can get 40gn of FFFg into a Ruger Old Army (although I shoot 30) & the Walker cylinder looks much larger but I suspect wall thickness and other factors will come into play
I have an Armi San Marco 3rd Model Dragoon, and I've loaded it with 50 grains of KIK 3F powder. BUT, I was also using .451 round balls rather than conicals.
I really enjoy your channel , you don't just accept the old ' dogma ' alot of us old dudes were taught . Dad built his 1st muzzleloading rifle in 1966 thanks and I was 3rd grade soaking up every word of wisdom from his friends and mentors .60 or so years later some still stands some doesnt . Never stop learning ! Thanks M.B.
That was fascinating, thank you. I knew substitutes (for those so lost to decency and humanity as to use them) were more compactable, but I had no idea how different Goex and Swiss were in that regard. As to the M1873 cartridge, you got that a bit wrong (although I think this might be what you meant to say). Colt’s revolver cartridge, Caliber .45, 1873, had only 30 grains of 2Fg powder. The *commercial* .45 Colt cartridge that came out in that same year did, in fact, have 40 grains (the specs actually say 37-38 grains), but that was never the military cartridge. (Kuhnhausen, Jerry. “The Colt Single Action Revolvers,” p. 23.)
I'm confident that makers of reproductions knew that Sam Colt said to never stick more than 50 grains of powder in the gun and saw to it that over charging could not happen in the reproductions they made. No point in risking a law suit. That being said a few reproductions will hold 65 grains with a lead ball or so I have been told. I don't own an original gun nor a reproduction so I don't know.
I'm late to the party here, so I hope you read my comment. Great channel. I own a Uberti Walker, and I run it with FF Goex and .457 round balls cast from Lee molds. I can say without a doubt that the maximum charge in the thing is 60 grains of FF. 60 grains pretty well fills the chamber all the way up. I typically run a 40 grain charge of FF in it. I suspect that running max charge in the Walker doesn't yield enough benefit to warrant the additional use of powder. All that being said, I'd take a Colt single action chambered in 32-20 over the Walker any day.
This pretty much sums it up. I think you covered all the bases on the subject. I was even suckered into believing the myth. What I will say of the Colt Walker is it came along at the right time and it was for all intended purposes, the model for which all other Colt cap and ball revolvers were designed after, with a few changes considered.
I hear people say that you can't put 40 grains in a .45 Colt, either. I load black powder loads in my .45 Colt. I use 3f goex. I put a 40 grain spout on a bulk style, round brass powder flask. I put a standard 250 grain flat point bullet. The powder charge is definitely compacted. People say it can't be done; but I do it all the time. When I load .45-70 I use the same powder flask; but with a 70 grain spout. Once again, with 3x goex. It works great. I used goex because that was the only real black powder that I could find locally.
Very interesting results and a most excellent video! I greatly appreciate you doing the work and providing the science. This is how we learn. I am left with a few thoughts. There is a possibility of inaccurate measuring devices, inconsistent manufacturing and a human flaw of assumption. Using a custom milled brass measuring device rated 60grains and my throw nozzle at 30 grains I almost instantly discovered that the so called throw spout is likely closer to 27 or 28, or my 60g milled measuring device is more than 60. Loading the powder loosely into a cylinder chamber I was left with about 3mm of space. After tapping the cylinder to allow the powder to settle I then had about 6mm of space. In the past I have been able to load a ball with no wad atop this charge. While watching the video I noticed something different about the "Walker" being used. The proof marks are in different locations than on both of mine. Not an issue, but curious none the less. The one I loaded was marked with 2013 on the frame under the brass trigger bar, if that helps. Mine is an Uberti purchased from Cabelas around 2017 and it came requiring a LOT of clean up. the greatest takeaway I have from this is I need to verify each of my loading and or measuring apparatuses are providing accurate and consistent results. Side note, I have spoken to someone a while back who was selling aluminum jigs to form paper cartridges for the "walker" who essentially expressed the exact same statements in terms of capable charges as you detail in this video. Think there was an Italian youtuber who posted results from their "walker" which would also be "anomalous".
That's it. You are talking iron. The repros are steel from the present big name repros. My old CvA 1861 I bought in 1984 was also steel. But CVA No longer makes anything but inline junk now. And there were lots of cheap repros in the 70s.
with pryojunk you can compress the powder with the ram rod add more then seat the ball like uncorned homemade. You can get more than 60 grains in it and seat a ball. I think I could smash over 65 and seat a ball with homemade and got up to 1375 in FPS. Love your videos
Wow! I've never had a walker ( not an original, nor a replica) BUT everybody knows that the original Walker was the most powerful gun in the world! The cylinder was twice as big than the italian replicas! The bullets were much shorter back then. The powder was much hotter. All in all there's no difference between the performance of a Walker and a 50 BMG, it's just common knowledge! Your problem is you've got the Italian Pocket version of the Walker!😁
Shortly after the Walker came out there was a revolving Shotgun which when cut down into a pistol easily shadows it . And it's hinted some had rifled barrels... A 10 gauge is one big hole !!!
Oh yeah, _The Big PP._ Chatted briefly with the guy who bought that specific one when it went up for auction, says the nipples were ground down so that the hammer couldn't reach them, but that he was getting that fixed. That one is a smoothbore, so you aren't maybe getting the finest pin-point precision with it using single round balls, but as it's a proper 10-Gauge smoothbore (no choking), you could pack a bunch of 00 Buck in each chamber and really give the Taurus Judge a run for its money.
After watching this my curiosity got out of hand. I took the cylinder from my Uberti Walker to the bench to see what the chamber diameter is and how much fffg powder I could get behind a .454 round ball and a 200 grain .450 bullet from an ancient Lee mold made for the 45 cap and ball revolvers. Going by volume from a quality measure: I had space enough to load a .454 round ball over 55grains volume of fffg. I could had space enough to get 50 grains of fffg behind the 200 grain Lee bullet. The chambers measured .448 diameter with a calibrated pin gage. I didnt fire it just wanted to see what fit. The only conclusion I can come to is not all cylinders are created equal. I was using Elephant brand powder, not that it makes a difference since it wasn't necessary to compress the load. It would be interesting to get one repro Walker of each brand and take a lot of measurements. Not disputing your findings just reporting what I found. Hank you
Awesome insightful topic! When, I made my trip to the Museum of Connecticut History, I saw Sam Colt's prototype pre Paterson which is a 52 caliber percussion revolver made by Gunsmith Anson Chase in 1835. The 52 caliber Colt Chase prototype revolver was probably more powerful than the later Colt Walker. One can be see Colt's Chase 52 caliber revolver in my video link bellow. I am the inventor of a specialty bullet series for mainly percussion cap&ball revolvers for Hunting and Wilderness Defense purposes. One of my Customers in Maine used my 255 grain Kaido Ojamaa-VKJV Universal Bullet in a replica Walker percussion revolver that was loaded with Triple Seven 3F powder, while my Customer was working on a farm he had the Walker in his car as it was Hunting season. A dangerous incident erupted with a 2.200 pound Bovine, big Bull started to attack the farm labors my Customer retrieved his Walker and shot the 2.200 attacking Bovine Bull in the upper body. The Bull dropped dead right there. It took one shot with using my 255 grain RFN Universal Bullet loaded with a stout charge of Triple Seven 3F powder. The British made a Beaumont Adams Dragoon percussion revolver in 50 caliber. Arsa a known black powder pistol maker in Spain is going to replicate the 50 caliber Beaumont Adams. Arsa's chief engineer told me that he calculated that the 50 caliber Beaumont Adams is more powerful than the Colt Walker. Arsa has discussed with me the possibilities of making a copy of the Austrian Josef Schneigg model 1860 in the whopping 55 caliber. Finally, Arsa is contemplating a 577 caliber percussion revolver bullet. The English revolver company Tranter produced 577 caliber percussion revolvers. The Norwegian Konsberg Arsenal made a 577 caliber prototype percussion revolver. No doubt that these 50/55/57 caliber cap&ball percussion revolvers are more powerful than the Colt Walker. ua-cam.com/video/ad5MdYKpL5o/v-deo.html&feature=share
Great video, I also have the same conicals and I use Schuetzen fffg black powder and for me to load 45 grains with the Dragoon conicals I had to take the cylinder off and actually use a hammer to seat them. Now with .451 round balls no problem. Me and my wife really enjoy your channel, thank you.
@@Everythingblackpowder thank you for asking, I appreciate that. I am feeling a lot better, in the past 3 weeks I have lost 40 pounds of water weight due to my heart. The good news is I finally got my appointment for my Eco appointment with the cardiologist doctor this Tuesday, then I should know a lot more what's going on with my heart.
I make my bullets with the Lee 200 grain cap and ball mold - it fits in the Remingtons easily, no alteration of the gun is necessary. It fits in my 1851 Colt if I struggle enough, there is barely enough room if you press the bullet's shoulders into the chamber, then the bullet can be rotated under the loading lever. If I used them in the 1851 a lot I would dremel the frame open a bit to ease loading. For max loads there is room for slightly less powder under the bullet compared to the ball, but the bullet, even with a bit less powder, will yield a few more ftlbs energy in my 1851 than the ball will at max load. This is the sort of thing that varies from gun to gun, from load to load, and from powder to powder. There is less energy available as there is a bit less powder, but the powder transfers it's energy to the bullet in a more efficient manner than it transfers it's energy to a round ball. This is the sort of thing that makes working with Black powder interesting.
Maybe they cut the lead ball in half or something I have a replica that my son gave me but I just fill the cylinder almost full and seat the ball I got two cans of caps when Walmart stopped selling black powder stuff it was on sale and all they had left great videos 👍🏻🤘🏻
My repro walker has 2 egg shaped chambers from cramming as much powder as I could get behind a conical. Happened a long time ago probably in my pyrodex days.
I have a Uberti 1847 colt walker. And with the 262gr dragoon bullet and 3F powder I can only fit 40gr max in MY pistol. And with the round ball I can fit around 50-55gr. So I would say we’ve had similar results. I’m happy with 35-40gr and the dragoon bullet is same was a 45LC
My dreams have been shattered! Shattered I say!! haha, I don't know much about the Walker except it still looks cool on the big screen! So does the Model 29 for that matter. I haven't shot any "Black Powder Loads" yet but I sure am learning a lot, keep the videos rollin' Jake!
Assuming everybody was honest about their load data and readings then I would suspect variations in the chronographs or manufacturing and/or QC differences in the guns themselves. The only way to tell would be both (all?) Of you shoot at the same place at the same time using the same powder out of the same bottle, and bullets all cast in the same session, over the same chronograph. Probably not likely but still, a good video, thank you. I do find it interesting that the original Walkers were supposed to take 60 grains of powder according to all the propaganda I've read, leading me to think that the modern replicas are not exact copies of the original walker.
What I would like to see is a Remington 1858 New Army in a Walker Colt powered loading; that would be awesome. Another thing I would like to see is a quick change swing out cylinder double action black powder revolver of similar power as well. The frame of the Taurus Judge comes to mind for that
60 grains was the maximum, with a round ball, not 90, but the cylinders were what is, basically, cast iron, so they would sometimes let go, not a good thing with a couple of Comanche bearing down on you. I think Phil just misspoke about the 90 grain charge, since 90 grains will fill the chamber to the top, with no room even for a round ball. It would be interesting to see what the difference in dimensions would be between an original Walker, and one of the replicas. I can put those charges (minus the 45 grains) in my Remington New Model Army.
Besides the cylinders themselves, the full house 60 grain loads were pretty harsh on those open topped frames as well. I'd say 50 is the highest you should ever load in these, even if repros might have nicer metallurgy in their cylinders.
The original Walker mould dropped conicals in excess of 260 grains. I don't recall exact weight atm and too lazy to look through my library of antique arms and accoutrements, but as I recall the ball and conical dia. was somewhere between .458 and .460 for the supplied moulds. The heavy conical behind a compressed load may have been able to match a 45 Colt with a 250 grain bullet and 40 grain charge, but I certainly don't see how since it's not contained and therefore not held back by a crimp to help out with initial pressure set back.
@@Everythingblackpowder Could be right I don't remember. I don't even have a replica mold for mine as I don't like the Walker it's just too big and heavy! You know Ian did some videos on the gun and I seem to remember one where he showed the gun, mould, bullets and told the weight of the original, but I don't recall what he said either...and as mentioned I'm too lazy to even search for that video :) I have a lot of books I've collected over the past 35+ years on historical guns and sometimes I will mix up what I read pertaining to one over another and I was thinking I read that they were in that neighborhood, but could be thinking of an entirely different gun.
Subscribed. I really liked your honesty and testing just to see what was what. I had to laugh! I had just mentioned to the Mate about how some of the first Walkers had the cylinders blown up by the pickett conicals being loaded backwards in them...and you came out and said the same thing not a second later. I have a Walker with an action job ( to repair the hair trigger that the revolver had when I bought it ) by a fellow named 'Goon'. I love to shoot it and use 50 grains of Pyrodex ( don't hold it against me ;0) and a round ball. That's plenty enough Boom and Smoke for me.
I had a pair of Uberti replicas. I think I crammed 50gr. of 3F Triple Seven under a round ball. Regardless, shooting that much powder per charge made for a LOT of fouling pretty quick. I could barely get through a cylinder before the damn things would bind up so hard, you needed two hands to cock the hammer. Between that and the loading levers slapping down with every shot, I found these are fun to shoot every once in a while, but I'm not really sure I would want to have to rely on one as a primary arm back in the day. I wonder if different repro brands are dimensionally different?
I measured my chamber depth and had some friends that own a colt second GEN and an army San Marco measured theirs and they were all within .010 of each other
There is even a debate to be had between the 7.62x25 tokarev and the 357 magnum ... also the we number of Beumont adams style revolvers in 50 and larger caliber in the cap and ball Era that I feel certain could best the energy numbers of the walker. None of this takes away from the walkers place in history or lessens the actual power of the walker one iota. It was a powerful hand gun ....still is. But with this as with so many things ...it is what it is .....and that is pretty much fixed.
I was never sold on the walker. Yea, its cool and all that. i just prefer a weapon that is just as effective at reasonable range, and not too wt’y. It does make for entertaining videos tho! You have shown the extreme limits and what is reasonable for the walker. Seems like a good bit of “fluff” in the discription with some folks. I do like how you go thru showing the steps in the process. Another fun video! Keep it up guys, you are apreciated!
Maybe among other factors there is a wide variation in powder measures. Also a variation in granulations might make a difference in charge weight for similar volumes. Unlike smokeless, small variations in charge weight wouldn't be a safety issue for bp.
OK that is really interesting Jake. Now to me that is interesting as I have been pushing 35 grains of black powder through my Pietta 1860 Army Colt Replica, with a .450 200 grain conical by Lee bullet mold and I do not have the trouble seating the bullet that you do with that Walker and the 217 grain Erasgone bullet. Now I will give you two caveats with my load for my gun, the black powder I am using is a home made black powder, and my gun is basically stock and has not been slicked up like some guys have done to their guns. Meaning I have (not) c hampered the cylinder's nor bored out the cylinder's to a .450 bore, like how some go to a .358 on their .36 caliber gun's. So that makes me wonder if they made any modifications to the cylinder on their gun's for ease of load and to increase the load.
All of your videos are good but this is the best one (IMHO) I’ve seen so far. This one got me to subscribe. Thanks for putting in the work on this one. Well done.
I've had 2 walkers... I could fit 2 30gr pyrodex pellets and a round ball . Or 63.5 grains or loose pyrodex ..unfortunately I didn't have a chronograph back then because they were ove $200 in the 1980s... But I can tell you that that roundball wouldngo through a Dogde Dart fender at an angle, both inner and outer, the radiator, and out the front grill. 😁 I had a bison model 1858 that would take 2 pellets and a 200gr conical and it shot 1000ps though that 12" barrel respectively...that comes out to about 444 FP ... suspect that Walker would have been about close the same. Maybe a little slower because of the barrel, ..
You make some very good arguments and present good evidence. My sticking point is that the Walker was designed to shoot a conical with 60 grains using a conical. I think the conical was probably a non-starter. I’ve loaded my Walker with 60 grains of Triple7 using a round ball without issue, other than the loading rod. Although your testing was very thorough, I’d like to see tests using 60 grains before I write the Walker off as not being the most powerful until 1935.
The walker using a conical can't come close to 60 grains. 40 grains is extremely hard with the chronicle colt Designed the walker to use. It's extremely hard to even use 40 grains with any conical made until the early 1860s. And with those your not going to get much more powder. The colt Single action army with its original 45 colt load made far more power than the walker.
Thought I was going crazy. Stuck in NY for a job, so no real BP but loaded 45 Colt with appx 35gr of Pyrodex P, noted the excessive recoil and went to a 24gr (to replicate the eventual 28gr service charge) and found it much nicer and not lacking a n any real way. Got a Walker by Uberti, loaded some “normal” 50gr charges with Pyrodex P and couldn’t seat a round ball…. Shot a “reduced” 40gr charge and was surprised at the recoil. Pyrodex, Triple Seven and the others are awful.
It would be very interesting to compare the chamber dimensions of the guns in question against each other, and then against an original Walker. It would certainly take away another variable. Could this be a "Walker challenge" in the offing here???
I have never had any form of walker, but i do have a Ruger Old Army, I am pretty sure I can't get 40 grains of 3f and a conical in there, but mine are 250gr, now i have to try it.
Good vid! I've been thinking about swapping my 1851 for a walker, but the loading lever actually stays up on the 51 and it'd drive me nuts moving it back up every shot on the walker.
My question is about possible variations in chamber capacities from one replica to another. I would want to see both guns tested by the same person using powder out the same container and the same bullets manufactured by the same equipment on the same day. I do not have dog in this fight and would not have a walker. If I buy a cap and ball pistol it would be one of the 5-shot 36 cal police models built on the 31 caliber frame. that seems like a practical gun that might even still have utility into days world You are a good presenter and kept my interest up for the full 30 plus minutes.
Nothing wrong with the thoughts involved, but one aspect I did not see was confirmation that the powder dispenser was calibrated off a scale. And I am shooting Conceals that are 225 grains so that aspect has relevance as well. No idea what was shot originally. My 44s New Model Army pair are easily pushing 1000 fps with low loads.
Interesting well conducted presentation. I would suggest the swiss is denser the goex and weighs more for a given volume. I dont have any swiss to compare with. Of no consequence anyway as clearly that Walker doesn't seem to have the chamber capacity.
The most amazing part of that video was watching you pour powder from that big mouthed bottle into the powder measure. If I tried that I would have put more on the ground than I ever got into the powder measure.
What I can also say is the ASP NMA gets 100 fps more velocity for the same charge vs the Pietta NMA. So barrel specs (bore) and or wear factor in as well.
One other thing you haven't touched on is the quality of steel in the early 1800s compared to steel today. If you could find a load that matched the pressure and energy of a 44 magnum and put it in an original Walker I don't believe the pistol would fare well.
Quite a few of the walkers blew up for a number of reasons and putting way too much powder in them along with poorer quality steel and iron of time I doubt they were able to get close to .44mag stats very many times before bad 💩 started happening. I agree with you, while the .44mag of it’s day it’s not even in the running when compared to the 44mag of today I have loaded up to 45grns of 3f Goex with 220grn Kaido bullet for mine but I load off the gun
Not much to say on this one other than, this is why I designed the Mukwa bullets the way I did. The Dragoon bullet measures over .800, were my 270 grain measures .655. My 260 grain measures .650. Now this isn't over whelming cylinder capacity, but does gain some. Now when Jeremy over at leverguns50 got just shy of 1000 fps. Not sure his charge. Though I think he tested both goex and 777. That's if my memory serves me. He also tested the same 270 grain bullet in the 45-55 walker cartridge for about the same results.
@WillardMcBain I have in the past posted pictues of all eight. 44 caliber bullets. I've also done molds for eight different.32 caliber. As well as four different. 36 cals. I'll never find enough energy to test them all thoroughly.
@WillardMcBain no I dont sell bullets or molds . I can't. I've been offering to people to test. But so far Jeremy is the only person to get any.. offered Garrett some and more and forwhat ever reason will not do I needed him to do to get it in motion. You have my email, I'm headed to the deer stand
When I first saw and shot a Walker reproduction sometime in the early 1970s, when my grandkids say dinosaurs roamed, the friend who owned it said it shor like a heavy .38 special or light .357 load. Seemed pretty accurate then and now.
Most of the repos have smaller chambers, check the general john pitman notes. Original Walkers were 1.761" x .445. Uburti 1.629" x .447" . A scale should be used to more accurately measure the powder.
@@rharthart9477 incorrect calculation. (1.761*.445² - 1.629*.447²)*pi/4 = .01825 cubic inches either .3 cc either 4.6 loose grains. And I think the original chamber diameter was closer to .45", like other Colt revolvers.
I am 72 years young. Got my first cap and ball I was 14 years old. Found it in a old fellows up stairs room. A original 1851 36 colt. His father took it off a union officer. I never had good luck with the conical bullets. Round balls shot better. I have all of the reproductions even a revolving rifle. I shoot black powder all the time. Rifles and pistols.
I prefer Swaged round balls. I've never had good luck shooting conicals from any of my Black Powder revolvers. I own all the colt repros except for one.
Did that old timer have any interesting stories from pappy butternut?
I agree. In my old Hawken Flintlock, my 1841 Harper's Ferry 'Mississippi", my three Remington .44 New Army's and my old Walker. Nothing
seems to be as accurate as the good old round ball. I have seen an original Walker and the Uberti is amazingly close
with respect to it's reproduction of the 1847 classic. I knew a person when I was real young who actually shot and
used an original and said that it was not uncommon for
a Walker to burst a chamber when loaded with 60 grains of 3f so most never loaded
over 50 grains. The vintage conical he had as a part of his civil war collection of things
to me appeared to be smaller then what I see today . I'm just a couple years younger then you and the
person I knew was a friend of my grandfather when I was a kid. Back then I actually got to shoot a real 1860 Henry in .44 rimfire.
Now, those rounds alone are worth a lot and you can't buy an original 1860 Henry for less then the cost of a new
Lexus. I have an old Uberty Henry and that thing is now like $2,000.
My father's family is from the Gettysburg area so I did get a chance to see a lot of old
firearms and my one cousin still has our family's original Springfield rifle from the Civil war.
I only have reproductions but I do love to use them.
Do you still have the original 1851? I would love to have an original Remington or Colt.
My oldest originals are a 1896 30-40 Krag along with an 1898 Krag. You treat them with respect and load
them conservatively and they will shoot forever.
Wow that’s a nice first gun!
That’s really awesome
The mythos surrounding any firearm detracts from the fact it's just plain cool
It’s definitely kewl
The walker toes the line between "just plain cool" and "it clearly sucks" very well. It's badass, but so obviously eclipsed by better designs within just a few years, and the results of this power test show just how little gain you get for all that extra weight and price.
We need a Paul Harrel style meat target comparison between a fully loaded walker and a fully loaded 1851 Navy and 1860 Army.
OFF TOPIC: In one of your videos you made black powder with sodium nitrate
I learned that black powder made with sodium nitrate is “blasting powder”! Just thought you might want to know! I enjoy your channel!! Sorry I messed up the comment 😊
Thank you
I was always told if your balls don't fit, don't bend your rod trying to seat them.......😂😂😂😂
Solid advice
That philosophy applies to more than just a black powder pistol.
One of the first lessons I learned at the hunt camp was never let the truth get in thue way of a good story.
And there ya go!
That's a very good point
I think the correct statement is that with a round ball at a 60 grain charge the Colt Walker was the highest velocity in a repeating handgun until the advent of the 357 mag
that the true statement n if this guy knew everything about black powder he would of said this but he didn't n also the reason why you can't get no more than 40 grain is because it's a remodel of the 3rd generation dragoon not first n that means the cylinder is shorter for the 3rd generation cause ppl was blowing up the first generation with putting more than 60 grains of powder
cause when your in danger or shooting that gun n runs out I don't think your going to properly measure out 60s grain of powder everytime so what happen is they would do 70 or 75 cause they were getting shot at too n jus stuff it down the cylinder n pray it did blow up if he watched any forgotten weapons videos on the dragoon he would know this n wouldn't act so stupid
What on earth are you talking about. The walker and the dragoon are different yes, but He is shooting a replica of a walker. Not a dragoon. If you would pay attention to any of those forgotten weapons videos you would know this. So everything you wrote makes no sense. we are all now dumber for having read it!!! I pray you are drunk for this we can At least understand.
😂
I absolutely love BP guns but I'm not in the USA. Here the only option for propellant is pretty-homemade pretty-irregular but true black powder and it compresses very well. I shoot my Uberti Colt Army 1860 with .45ACP casings full of 3F (28-30 grains in theory), filler on top and .454 round balls. It leaves good space in the chambers and the shots are powerful and accurate. Awesome channel, greetings from Argentina!
I had an early Walker repro in 1975. I had to ream the cylinders slightly to get the right size ball loaded. It was poorly made. I was able to load 55 grains behind a round ball. Recently picked a new one but havent fussed with it yet. Your well done video has motivated me to test it.
I have a reproduction Walker (Uberti) purchased in the white from Cabela's in 2004. I nornally load it with .454 round ball and 45 grains of 777 and have nearly enough room for a second ball.
It would definitely be interesting to document the chamber size differences between the various brands of reproductions and the originals.
Well everyone I mentioned in the video has a Uberti but two of my friends have a ASM and a second Gen Colt and 60gr is the max. I would say they are within 2gr of each other. As for the Original, who knows.
We get into 1F to 4 F as well as the substitutes. While I am still working on it, clearly 777 x 3F has a lot more bang for the measurement than 3F True Black Powder. Like reloading, sure we can do volume, but you weigh that volue first, tune it and then you have a fairly consistent weight (which is what the manuals use) - but, some measure better than others, long grain stick powders are much harder and less consistent. While a rifle will not see it, a pistol can vary a lot, 9mm and smaller more so. I also use a Chrnograph each time to get an idea of how hot that load is. @@Everythingblackpowder
@Everythingblackpowder For what's its worth, I obtained an Uberti about 20yrs ago, and was quite disappointed as it grouped very poorly, regardless of powder charge. I also found that large quantities of power often stated, did not fit in my gun, as you demonstrated. Upon inspection by a gunsmith, he stated that most modern replicas have undersized cylinders for mis-guided safety, and upon slugging my bore and cylinders, this was very much the case. It cost as much as the gun itself, but he offered to ream out the cylinders to .002" over bore diameter, which I went for. The gun grouped considerably better with both rounds and conical, but what I really noticed was how much more powder it was able to hold. 60gr actual Goex FFFg with rounds became easy to load, and the Lee Precision 200gr conical (which has a much shorter nose than what you were experimenting with), could load, with some effort but not rod bending, 55gr FFFg. The gun shoots most accurately more in the range of 40gr, but 50s and even 60s became possible. I do not remember how much material was removed from the cylinders to achieve 0.002" over bore, but with the way the powder capacity increased, it must have been quite a bit.
I agree with you on this (overall) as the original charge for the Walkers (as we are told) had to be reduced because of the metallurgy at the time had cylinders blow apart. Again… this is word of mouth issues so “who knows”… no way on 90 grains of 3F Swiss and a conical… I do not have an original Walker to verify this… but you can’t do 90 grains of 3F and seat a 200 grain LEE 90234 in a 45-70 BFR cylinder… just for reference.
lol excellent point with the 45-70 comparison!
@@Everythingblackpowder after watching you video I removed my 45-70 BFR cylinder, use blue painters tape over the bottom of the cylinder and measured 90 grains by volume… yada yada yada… I did not want to hammer on the bullets lol…
I had the same results (just now) in my Uberti Walker that you did with 45 & 50 grains with the before mentioned Lee 200 grain RF bullet.
I guess I just do not need to “compensate” so I am happy with 35 grains of 3F Swiss and my cast conicals. Thank you again for your video… I got me thinking… that is always dangerous lol
@raytribble8075 thank you
That guy was clearly drunk...
@@curly__3 probably never tried loading a walker i would bet
Somebody: "The Colt walker was the most powerful handgun until the 357 Magnum!"
Me laughing in French 1777 .69 caliber pistol loaded with 64 caliber round ball and 110 grains of powder 😂
Sorry friend but apples to oranges don't count. The saying is "The most powerful REVOLVER" not handgun....
What's the velocity?
@@daddski1 I've only heard people describe the walker as the most powerful handgun until the .357 magnum. Even in the video, the NRA "historian" said handgun, not revolver.
@@dancortes3062that's for a few reasons.
1st the charge was never to be the monsters that people use.
It think I read once it suppose to be 20gr.
You don't even want to know the loads I've done in the past with pistols.
I have an Uberti replica of the Walker that I've had since the mid-1980s and it's a cool pistol. It gets a lot of attention at the range, because most of the folks there with their 9m plastic playthings have absolutely no idea what it is, they just know it's HUGE and makes a lot of smoke. I like it, a lot. But let's face it, the pistols that came out after it, the Dragoons, are just much better pistols from a shooting perspective. The automatic flop-down lever on a Walker is a PITA. And Gus McRae aside, if I tried to wear a pair of them on a gunbelt, I'd constantly be tripping over said belt, 'cause it would never stay anywhere near my waist, the belt would have to have its own suspenders. That's why they hung them from the saddle horn. But I like it anyway.
Suspenders
Just wanted to add to I have an old Walker that I picked up somewhere in the late seventies or around 1980. I guess for liability reasons they must be making the cylinder shorter on the newer guns because my old Walker I can load safely 60 grams of powder and a round ball 457 diameter, nice and tight and I can hit milk jugs at 300 yards with it, that's not to brag that's just saying that's what it can do, now I can load 50 g of powder and one conical bullet from original Colt design which my ojive is smaller than what yours appears to be in the videos, that's probably why you're having to shave end of your bullet off give it a semi wadcutter effect😊, but needless to say this is what my old Italian reproduction Walker is capable of. Keep up the good work I enjoy the videos 👍
Can you insert a rod into one of the chambers cylinder to measure the depth? I'd be curious to see if they're drilled at different depths between Pietta, Uberti, ASM, original Colt spec, etc.
rober your quite the comedian.......your gonna get a lot of folks buying walkers to go jumper hunting which should cause a rapid increase in their population.....but they will be cursing you when they find out that it's impossible to hit a house at 300 yards and not very likely to hit a jumper at 100 yards
I have 2 Walkers an Uberti and a ASM. Both use about 35 grains (Goex). I have never pushed it. But If I wished to, I would take the cylinder out and put it on an external cylinder press; I built one using a old Beer Capper. It can compress considerable more then a Colt loading lever.
I'm not an avid youtube gun content consumer, just happened to see this in my feed and find old West guns interesting. What really caught my ear was your correct use of "exaggerate". Damn, I had no idea how good it would feel to hear that. You know what I mean, I'm sure. Thank you! :)
Great video. Love my Walker and my 3rd Model Dragoon. Very fun to shoot. I make my own paper cartridges which is very relaxing.
I like your numbers, Jake. And your assessment of the power available in the Walker.
And as a fan of the .45 Colt, I'll be working up some Holy Black loads for CAS in my clones. Most of my shooting is
with that newfangled "smoke less" junk, which is easier to clean and I'm lazy, but I do love the fireball and smoke of a
nice powerful BP round! Thanks for the video! 👍
Thank you
@@Everythingblackpowder You bet! Keep em coming!!
Black powder certainly has a different sounding kind of "Boom" than black powder. Smokeless powder has a sharper crack to it.
@@EverythingblackpowderI've noticed there are 160 grain bullets available for 45 colt, is there some big disadvantage I'm missing there that makes them less desirable? The bullet can't go "too fast" right? or can it, does it overcome the rifling or destabilize?
Just curious if you have any thoughts/insight on that?
I love that dragoon conical. Hits like a freight train. Was glad to see you use it. You were very fair in your assessment of the walkers power. Thanks for this video. As far as 50 grains of powder goes maybe with a round ball but never with that massive conical you were using. Thanks for showing that part as well.
Thank you
Great video! I think you did a very accurate job of testing the big Walker. When I first heard the Walker vs 357 Magnum story I was suitably impressed because I really like the Walker for its historical value, but was never really concerned about the revolvers power as I'm not a "cult" Walker guy. One thing that seriously disturbed me on your video, however, was the "lecture" given by the NRA museum curator stating 90 grains of powder will fit in the Walker. You couldn't put 90 grains in the cylinder hole even if you used no ball. For a museum curator to make that statement is outrageous! and does not inspire confidence in his creditability. If I want pistol power I'll use my S&W model 29. When I want to shoot for smoke, noise and historical fun I'll shoot the Walker.
I know you are a dedicated researcher, because you bent the loading lever on your walker to get to the bottom of the question. 👍🤠
Thank you
AGREED,that's $92.00 replacement cost part.
I’m glad you brought up Dustin’s video. His walker paper cartridge kit for the eras gone conicals call for 40gr of 3f. I’ve had no problem loading those. 45gr of loose powder barely fits in my walker like yours. It’s so close you sometimes have too much. I have only tried schuetzen and goex. I usually save swiss for cartridge guns or ‘precision’ shooting. Great demonstration. I never thought of the different powders compressing different.
Thank you
I read that the army used 230 grain bullets in the 45 colt cartridge then later 230 grain bullet in the 45 schofield cartridge. Id like to know how that compares to a 230 grain bullet in the 44 walker. Also, some original cartridges from the 1800 have been cut open and found they were loaded with 4F powder. ... so many variables, it will be difficult to explore all the possibilities. As always, i liked the video.
If i remember correctly it was the 4f loads that blew the walkers apart... I'm no walker expert, but it seems i read something about that...
My great great grandfather didn’t have a chronograph. So legend becomes fact.
Thanks for your research and your right.
I'd read in a book exactly your opening statement and had killing range of up to 40 yards and was as powerful as a rifle. The model of the rifle was not mentioned. The book, however, is "Empire of the Summer Moon" by S.C. Gwynne, a fantastic book whether the author is accurate or not in his assessment of the Walker-Colt/Colt-Walker.
Your on the right track. But you flogging g the difference between “then” and “now”.
As you know from your journey making black powder there is a world of difference in power, burn rate etc between your first batch and you process today which rivals commercial products.
Back in 1847 powder was like your first batch. Slow burn and less power than today.
There was no “Fg” grade system. That was introduced in 1881 when DuPont formalized the A, B, C grades of blasting and cannon powders and the formerly “fine” sporting powder was screened to the “F” series we use today. The “g” designation was added sometime in the mid-1880’s to indicate powder tumbled and glazed with graphite.
Still there are references as early as 1842 specifying the procurement of “fine” powder for military small arms. Today we associate this with the grades we are accustomed to. But then “Fine” was a quality descriptor used in general sales. Something on the order of quality. Good-better-best-fine. Fine being the top of the heap and quite subjective. So. In your store you might say “this I’d best brown paper”. I might say “I want fine brown paper”. You’d say “ ok it’s fine”. And so it was. If we both agree. Very very subjective.
Add this to the metallurgy of the time. Radical improvements were made in iron and steel between 1847 and 1861.
The walkers illustrate this. Those guns are iron. Not steel. And iron so…..variable in quality as to be scary today. This is the root of the many blown cylinders. I’m collections today walkers are like hens teeth. Of the original 1100 made about 300 survive. Minimal cost for one today is $100k and up. Up a lot! Of the surviving 300 it’s estimated that 200 had blown cylinders and had replacement cylinders installed by colt in the early 1850’s. By that point colt had acquired a better grade of iron thus improving those cylinders materially. A point to remember. Powder quality was also improving as metallurgy improved at the colt works.
The walker replica you have today is not exactly like the originals. The most glaring detail is the lack of a forcing cone. The original walker cylinder was about 5/16 inch longer than the average reproduction of today. Lacking a barrel extension aka forcing cone within the frame. I believe Ian pointed this out in a video years ago. This is what added to the difficulty seating conicals in the original gun.
The first reproductions from Italy and Spain were made by reverse engineering original 1851’s for the most part. Not so with the walker. No one was going to ship a walker to Spain in the late 1950’s ….not with them being worth close to $100k even then.
So. The first reproductions were based upon dimensions provided. “ like that 1851 we sent you, except the cylinder is this long. The barrel that long. See the picture. And in providing those dimensions people like Val Forget were very aware of the ….explosive… history of that gun. And the common assumption that it was the extra large capacity of the chambers that was the cause. Not the poor quality of the metal, despite the poor quality of the powder.
So steel was of course specified on the reproductions. But in addition a forcing cone was added, just as colt added a forcing cone to the “dragoon” to adapt a shorter cycle set to the frame, which was also shortened to become the “first model dragoon” as it’s called today. So. In short, the reproductions we have access to today have noticeably shorter cylinders and frames than the originals. This also complicated the fabrication of “faked” originals. I believe the NRA museum did a video illustrating such fakes built on Italian parts. The tip-off being a forcing cone among other detail.
So the originals could digest a 50-60 grain charge and seat a conical only with great difficulty, the upside down seating being one work around as you point out.
The dragoon represents the evolution of the walker. The first step being a shorter cylinder limiting powder to 45 grains at most. By 1861 this evolution was down to 30 grains.
And through this all iron segued into steel, and finally “better” steel in the 1861.
And powder evolved such that the “good” powder of 1847 became the “fine” powder of 1861. One must ask how many original 1847’s ruptured a cylinder when some lad stuffed it full of “fine” powder in 1862? The fire at Colts destroyed many of those records.
So you bit off a complicated chew. But you gnawed upon it quite well! I hope this explains why you could not quite close the loop on contemporary accounts with what we glean today from our reproductions.
Fox out
Thanks fox
Comprehensive, I liked reading this.
Something to note is that some people take the cylinder out and load on a stand with a ramrod and hammer, even on these colts. Karls powder looks just like the pyrodex p I use.
I recently come across your channel and subscribed! I used to be into black powder shooting and really want to get back into it. I never had a Walker so I don’t have experience with one, but I used to have a new model army 58 Remington, and I remember loading 45 grains of goex into it. The catch being I’d load 30 grain, ram it, load 15 more, ram that, then load a .451 round ball over the top. It was a fight to get it seated, and some times I remember shaving the balls to clear the forcing cone. I didn’t have a chronograph so I dunno how fast they were, but it sure felt powerful lol Great channel!
1) Having met karl of Forgotten Weapons in person, I can safely say I wouldn't trust his opinion on if the sky is blue.
2) Not all conical bullets are the same shape; the ones you're using have a pretty sharp ogive angle and are therefore leaving a lot of air space to the front of the cylinder. While yours may be the correct bullet for the period, it is entirely plausible that there are people out there using modern cast bullets of the same bullet weight, but with a blunter ogive (or even a flat-point spitzer) that leaves less room "to the side of the nose" at the front of the chamber, therefore allowing more space to the rear- I can easily see how that could account for an extra 5 or maybe even 10 grains beyond what you're able to load.
Thanks but everyone I mentioned in the video was using the same 260gr 3rd model dragoon bullet I was using. There’s all kinds of conicals nowadays that are better choices than these.
Karl’s “In Range” Ian is “Forgotten Weapons” . Funny once he or whoever started going off on everyone in comments white knighting his Tubby or Trans friends. You don’t see the collaboration anymore.
@@dustyak79 Don't know anything about white knights or Trans friends of either, but Ian (Forgotten Weapons) stepping away from InRange was because Forgotten Weapons was taking off so much to the point that with the amount of traveling he was doing visiting auctions, museums, private collections, etc. Not just in the US, but literally all over the world; he didn't have enough time left to devote to InRange or deal with the scheduling conflicts it might cause so he stepped back to focus on FW which left Karl as the sole creator of InRange. Ian's PRETTY damn busy, with months on the road filming FW content, at wife at home, the WWSD rifles, his Headstamp publishing company making and printing books, etc.
Love Ian and he'll be the first to admit he gets things wrong sometimes, never had an issue with Karl but at the same time I haven't watched more than a few InRange vids since Ian departed. I don't know enough about the intricacies of Black or substitute powder weapons or a Bias against Karl, but in all the videos I've seen EBP seems like a to the point no nonsense (Unless it's joking around) kind of guy. So with the way he actually went into detail, did his own comparisons, and broke it all down... it definitely seems like there's something off with Karl's version of events. Whether innocently or maliciously done I don't know, so won't claim to.
Just wanted to point out the reason Ian left, which he himself explained in a video. Could he of been lying or omitting additional issues that caused him to split? Sure, that's always possible everytime collaborations end. But AFAIK Karl hasn't developed a grudge against Ian, and Ian only left to focus on and have time for his own business and channel.
I am left wondering why Karl faked/fibbed his results and video though, it's not like he needed to. That was one of the great things with Ian co-hosting, he might agree with Karl's results, or he might point out something Karl didn't consider, a prospective he hadn't thought about, or outright disagree with him all together. Now there's no one to balance Karl out, or tell him "No, you're wrong and here's why I think so".
@@pyro1047 I’m sure it mostly had to do with Forgotten weapons taking the center stage. My comment was kinda a jab as I’ve watched forgotten weapons and in range for a long time and like most once Ian left I was soon to follow . Karl went extra on everyone, basically you also had to follow other social accounts to see why I gave some of my jabs and where they came from over the years. His Tubby friend that sinistral rifleman gets tons of negative comments about his weight and him and Karl like to respond to each of them with the same generic Like to see you shoot type comment. His Trans friends I took issue with solely because he was echoing the “trans Genocide” Hyperbole. Oh also once he got involved with the brownells retro AR he forgot he also complained about how much a Colt SP1 costed when they had a limited run. Yet brownells was only a little bit cheaper but still drastically more than the sum of all parts that used to be sold individually in the catalog.
Video was FINE! Did NOT suck! My Dad had a black powder, probably 45-70 government, single shot "Spanish American War" rifle, that was still safe to shoot. (The barrel still had some lands in it!) That thing shot about seven feet of flames & smoke. My Dad, who was an excellent shot, said it shot about one foot low and one foot wide at 100 yards. That thing was fun to shoot. If you shot it at night, it would spew dragon flames! So I am thinking about black powder rifles & pistols, just for the fun of it.
Yeah, that loading lever got bent alright. It was both bent and really f@#$ed up! 😮 Time to either bend it back or get the parts replaced. Hope that you didn't crack those grips when giving it a pounding. Love the videos, keep them coming!
Thank you
Carl was using a finger tip measure. The pad of his finger would reduce the powder charge to a minor degree. What if they were using a hollow base conical? (Which I doubt) They also may have been loading the cylinder outside the pistol in a loading tool ( I am thinking of the screw down type that loads all six at once). I am a Cult Walker person. I love the things, but DO NOT practice nor recommend cramming max powder into it. I ultimately ended up using a reduced charge that would not blow down the load lever, enough of a filler to seat the ball at the very top of the cylinder, and enjoy much more accuracy and fun. Great content on your site!!
Very informative, reasonably, and fairly discussed and demonstrated concerning the claims of others. Especially liked you added the next most consistent platform, the 1873, even with reduced strength powder. I am still working on getting around to black powder and realize I am missing out on another era of historical firearm platforms. Needed to follow up on this video after it was brought up on the 11BangBang channel gathering. Thank You sir.
Thank you
Great video. Open on the method of testing and researched history was sourced. I found it entertaining and informative. Thank you.
Thank you
Great video. I have a reproduction colt Walker. It’s brutal. You are not going to do conceal carry with a colt Walker. At pistol range, it can open you up like a melon.
It’s size, appearance and presence is great for deterrence in open carry.
I have heard that there was a conversion kit used by the colt Walker. Don’t know much about it or the shells it used.
I also have a colt single action in 45 colt. It’s also a powerful gun.
At the end of the day, I love these guns. Both in open carry are intimidating which leads to deterrence.
My last hand gun is an older 1911. It’s also a handful. I love my hand guns.
Does it matter what the stopping energy is? How fast the slug flys? At a certain point, it doesn’t matter. Each of these is going to do a massive amount of trauma against your perpetrator.
You can’t go wrong with these guns. I am not a fan of glocks. It’s an appearance thing. Glocks work great, just not my cup of tea.
I use the same 458 ball in my Walker as I do in my 50 cal hawkin. Same double measure of 3F GOex. Never figured out how many grains my measure has.
I think your empirical work was excellent and I may look into it as now I am curious.
In short, the colt Walker is an extremely intimidating hand gun in open carry. Is it the purported cannon it’s been hyped up to? I don’t think so nor do I think it’s relevant. Just it’s presence is enough and the best case of self defense is when you don’t need to pull the trigger.
It is nice to see a level headed and logical conclusion the the Walker debate, I also think that the various comments made by "so called experts" who have probably never even fired a Walker less than helpful on this subject, to put yourself on a pedestal and state these ridiculous "facts" is not helpful, people are going to be quoting these pseudo facts as if they have some base in reality, your tests here prove the real situation, as did your tests getting 40 Grn in a Colt 45 case (even though it was not a folded head case), people are very quick to quote these "facts" that suit their own theories, but you test things for yourself. Well done! Chris B.
Thank you.
Have you tried a different black powder measure? Different brands can measure different amounts. Also spouts can be off also.
Black powder, Weight vs Volume
ua-cam.com/users/shorts1PiiypKgd5M?feature=share
I have a Walker and several Colts and clones 1873. I have always suspected that the Walker was overrated as far as it being the "44 Magnum of its day". Just observing penetration results with similar charges and bullet weights. Thanks for the chronographical data and other info. Interesting about the difference in compresibility of different powder manufacturers. Makes sense but never thought about it. I subscribed and glad I found your channel.
Thank you.
it is possible Uberti did slightly change some dimensions to avoid having their guns used to make a fake copy. I had a Uberti Walker for a while but sold it,because it was too expensive to use. Not the gun it was the horse needed to carry it. Interesting gun from an historical aspect but about as useful as carbonated buttermilk.
Carbonated buttermilk ... really handy for making 2 ingredient AP flour biscuits.
That's very interesting. You can get 40gn of FFFg into a Ruger Old Army (although I shoot 30) & the Walker cylinder looks much larger but I suspect wall thickness and other factors will come into play
With a round ball or that 260gr conical?
@@Everythingblackpowder .457 round ball, never tried with a conic but that would of course take more room
I've found this with swiss as well, the most I can get under a conical in my .36 is 20gr but goex, 777, etc. I can get 25 under the same conical.
I’m glad to hear that it’s not just me.
I have an Armi San Marco 3rd Model Dragoon, and I've loaded it with 50 grains of KIK 3F powder. BUT, I was also using .451 round balls rather than conicals.
I really enjoy your channel , you don't just accept the old ' dogma ' alot of us old dudes were taught . Dad built his 1st muzzleloading rifle in 1966 thanks and I was 3rd grade soaking up every word of wisdom from his friends and mentors .60 or so years later some still stands some doesnt . Never stop learning ! Thanks M.B.
Thank you
May want to look at the c96, over 1800 fps. Yes, I know late in the centur, but still a very early firearm, and long before any magnums.
What round did the C 96 Mauser shoot that was going 1800 ft./s??
The 30 Mauser did about 1400 ft./s which is about 400 foot pounds of energy
Hey Jake, I really appreciate you doing the math on this! I've always suspected this was the case but never did any studies.
Thank you
That was fascinating, thank you. I knew substitutes (for those so lost to decency and humanity as to use them) were more compactable, but I had no idea how different Goex and Swiss were in that regard. As to the M1873 cartridge, you got that a bit wrong (although I think this might be what you meant to say). Colt’s revolver cartridge, Caliber .45, 1873, had only 30 grains of 2Fg powder. The *commercial* .45 Colt cartridge that came out in that same year did, in fact, have 40 grains (the specs actually say 37-38 grains), but that was never the military cartridge. (Kuhnhausen, Jerry. “The Colt Single Action Revolvers,” p. 23.)
Thanks Hugh. You knew what I meant. 😉
I'm confident that makers of reproductions knew that Sam Colt said to never stick more than 50 grains of powder in the gun and saw to it that over charging could not happen in the reproductions they made. No point in risking a law suit. That being said a few reproductions will hold 65 grains with a lead ball or so I have been told. I don't own an original gun nor a reproduction so I don't know.
I'm late to the party here, so I hope you read my comment. Great channel. I own a Uberti Walker, and I run it with FF Goex and .457 round balls cast from Lee molds. I can say without a doubt that the maximum charge in the thing is 60 grains of FF. 60 grains pretty well fills the chamber all the way up. I typically run a 40 grain charge of FF in it. I suspect that running max charge in the Walker doesn't yield enough benefit to warrant the additional use of powder. All that being said, I'd take a Colt single action chambered in 32-20 over the Walker any day.
Agreed. Thank you
This pretty much sums it up. I think you covered all the bases on the subject. I was even suckered into believing the myth. What I will say of the Colt Walker is it came along at the right time and it was for all intended purposes, the model for which all other Colt cap and ball revolvers were designed after, with a few changes considered.
I hear people say that you can't put 40 grains in a .45 Colt, either. I load black powder loads in my .45 Colt. I use 3f goex. I put a 40 grain spout on a bulk style, round brass powder flask. I put a standard 250 grain flat point bullet. The powder charge is definitely compacted. People say it can't be done; but I do it all the time. When I load .45-70 I use the same powder flask; but with a 70 grain spout. Once again, with 3x goex. It works great. I used goex because that was the only real black powder that I could find locally.
Very interesting results and a most excellent video!
I greatly appreciate you doing the work and providing the science. This is how we learn.
I am left with a few thoughts. There is a possibility of inaccurate measuring devices, inconsistent manufacturing and a human flaw of assumption.
Using a custom milled brass measuring device rated 60grains and my throw nozzle at 30 grains I almost instantly discovered that the so called throw spout is likely closer to 27 or 28, or my 60g milled measuring device is more than 60. Loading the powder loosely into a cylinder chamber I was left with about 3mm of space. After tapping the cylinder to allow the powder to settle I then had about 6mm of space. In the past I have been able to load a ball with no wad atop this charge.
While watching the video I noticed something different about the "Walker" being used. The proof marks are in different locations than on both of mine. Not an issue, but curious none the less. The one I loaded was marked with 2013 on the frame under the brass trigger bar, if that helps. Mine is an Uberti purchased from Cabelas around 2017 and it came requiring a LOT of clean up.
the greatest takeaway I have from this is I need to verify each of my loading and or measuring apparatuses are providing accurate and consistent results.
Side note, I have spoken to someone a while back who was selling aluminum jigs to form paper cartridges for the "walker" who essentially expressed the exact same statements in terms of capable charges as you detail in this video.
Think there was an Italian youtuber who posted results from their "walker" which would also be "anomalous".
Vlad Spara Storia?
If 1840s iron could safely run 44 mag power we would still be useing it.
lol! Excellent point!
That's it.
You are talking iron.
The repros are steel from the present big name repros.
My old CvA 1861 I bought in 1984 was also steel. But CVA No longer makes anything but inline junk now.
And there were lots of cheap repros in the 70s.
Nice piece of investigative reporting. I don't have a Colt Walker nor do I intend to get one. But I admire the work that you've done.
Thank you
with pryojunk you can compress the powder with the ram rod add more then seat the ball like uncorned homemade. You can get more than 60 grains in it and seat a ball. I think I could smash over 65 and seat a ball with homemade and got up to 1375 in FPS. Love your videos
Wow! I've never had a walker ( not an original, nor a replica) BUT everybody knows that the original Walker was the most powerful gun in the world! The cylinder was twice as big than the italian replicas! The bullets were much shorter back then. The powder was much hotter. All in all there's no difference between the performance of a Walker and a 50 BMG, it's just common knowledge! Your problem is you've got the Italian Pocket version of the Walker!😁
😂
@@Everythingblackpowder You did a good respectful job.
@@undeadblackjack thank you
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
LoL 😂
Shortly after the Walker came out there was a revolving Shotgun which when cut down into a pistol easily shadows it .
And it's hinted some had rifled barrels...
A 10 gauge is one big hole !!!
Oh yeah, _The Big PP._
Chatted briefly with the guy who bought that specific one when it went up for auction, says the nipples were ground down so that the hammer couldn't reach them, but that he was getting that fixed.
That one is a smoothbore, so you aren't maybe getting the finest pin-point precision with it using single round balls, but as it's a proper 10-Gauge smoothbore (no choking), you could pack a bunch of 00 Buck in each chamber and really give the Taurus Judge a run for its money.
After watching this my curiosity got out of hand. I took the cylinder from my Uberti Walker to the bench to see what the chamber diameter is and how much fffg powder I could get behind a .454 round ball and a 200 grain .450 bullet from an ancient Lee mold made for the 45 cap and ball revolvers.
Going by volume from a quality measure: I had space enough to load a .454 round ball over 55grains volume of fffg. I could had space enough to get 50 grains of fffg behind the 200 grain Lee bullet. The chambers measured .448 diameter with a calibrated pin gage. I didnt fire it just wanted to see what fit. The only conclusion I can come to is not all cylinders are created equal. I was using Elephant brand powder, not that it makes a difference since it wasn't necessary to compress the load. It would be interesting to get one repro Walker of each brand and take a lot of measurements. Not disputing your findings just reporting what I found. Hank you
I checked the cylinder volume on my Uberti, a second gen Colt and an Armi San Marco that some friends own and they are all within .010 of each other.
Awesome insightful topic!
When, I made my trip to the Museum of Connecticut History, I saw Sam Colt's prototype pre Paterson which is a 52 caliber percussion revolver made by Gunsmith Anson Chase in 1835.
The 52 caliber Colt Chase prototype revolver was probably more powerful than the later Colt Walker.
One can be see Colt's Chase 52 caliber revolver in my video link bellow.
I am the inventor of a specialty bullet series for mainly percussion cap&ball revolvers for Hunting and Wilderness Defense purposes.
One of my Customers in Maine used my 255 grain Kaido Ojamaa-VKJV Universal Bullet in a replica Walker percussion revolver that was loaded with Triple Seven 3F powder, while my Customer was working on a farm he had the Walker in his car as it was Hunting season.
A dangerous incident erupted with a 2.200 pound Bovine, big Bull started to attack the farm labors my Customer retrieved his Walker and shot the 2.200 attacking Bovine Bull in the upper body. The Bull dropped dead right there. It took one shot with using my 255 grain RFN Universal Bullet loaded with a stout charge of Triple Seven 3F powder.
The British made a Beaumont Adams Dragoon percussion revolver in 50 caliber. Arsa a known black powder pistol maker in Spain is going to replicate the 50 caliber Beaumont Adams. Arsa's chief engineer told me that he calculated that the 50 caliber Beaumont Adams is more powerful than the Colt Walker.
Arsa has discussed with me the possibilities of making a copy of the Austrian Josef Schneigg model 1860 in the whopping 55 caliber.
Finally, Arsa is contemplating a 577 caliber percussion revolver bullet. The English revolver company Tranter produced 577 caliber percussion revolvers. The Norwegian Konsberg Arsenal made a 577 caliber prototype percussion revolver. No doubt that these 50/55/57 caliber cap&ball percussion revolvers are more powerful than the Colt Walker.
ua-cam.com/video/ad5MdYKpL5o/v-deo.html&feature=share
Great video, I also have the same conicals and I use Schuetzen fffg black powder and for me to load 45 grains with the Dragoon conicals I had to take the cylinder off and actually use a hammer to seat them. Now with .451 round balls no problem.
Me and my wife really enjoy your channel, thank you.
Thanks, Karl. How are you feeling?
@@Everythingblackpowder thank you for asking, I appreciate that. I am feeling a lot better, in the past 3 weeks I have lost 40 pounds of water weight due to my heart. The good news is I finally got my appointment for my Eco appointment with the cardiologist doctor this Tuesday, then I should know a lot more what's going on with my heart.
Glad to hear it!
I make my bullets with the Lee 200 grain cap and ball mold - it fits in the Remingtons easily, no alteration of the gun is necessary. It fits in my 1851 Colt if I struggle enough, there is barely enough room if you press the bullet's shoulders into the chamber, then the bullet can be rotated under the loading lever. If I used them in the 1851 a lot I would dremel the frame open a bit to ease loading.
For max loads there is room for slightly less powder under the bullet compared to the ball, but the bullet, even with a bit less powder, will yield a few more ftlbs energy in my 1851 than the ball will at max load. This is the sort of thing that varies from gun to gun, from load to load, and from powder to powder. There is less energy available as there is a bit less powder, but the powder transfers it's energy to the bullet in a more efficient manner than it transfers it's energy to a round ball. This is the sort of thing that makes working with Black powder interesting.
Maybe they cut the lead ball in half or something I have a replica that my son gave me but I just fill the cylinder almost full and seat the ball I got two cans of caps when Walmart stopped selling black powder stuff it was on sale and all they had left great videos 👍🏻🤘🏻
My repro walker has 2 egg shaped chambers from cramming as much powder as I could get behind a conical. Happened a long time ago probably in my pyrodex days.
I have a Uberti 1847 colt walker. And with the 262gr dragoon bullet and 3F powder I can only fit 40gr max in MY pistol. And with the round ball I can fit around 50-55gr. So I would say we’ve had similar results. I’m happy with 35-40gr and the dragoon bullet is same was a 45LC
My dreams have been shattered! Shattered I say!! haha, I don't know much about the Walker except it still looks cool on the big screen! So does the Model 29 for that matter. I haven't shot any "Black Powder Loads" yet but I sure am learning a lot, keep the videos rollin' Jake!
lol thanks Mike
Assuming everybody was honest about their load data and readings then I would suspect variations in the chronographs or manufacturing and/or QC differences in the guns themselves. The only way to tell would be both (all?) Of you shoot at the same place at the same time using the same powder out of the same bottle, and bullets all cast in the same session, over the same chronograph. Probably not likely but still, a good video, thank you. I do find it interesting that the original Walkers were supposed to take 60 grains of powder according to all the propaganda I've read, leading me to think that the modern replicas are not exact copies of the original walker.
What I would like to see is a Remington 1858 New Army in a Walker Colt powered loading; that would be awesome. Another thing I would like to see is a quick change swing out cylinder double action black powder revolver of similar power as well. The frame of the Taurus Judge comes to mind for that
60 grains was the maximum, with a round ball, not 90, but the cylinders were what is, basically, cast iron, so they would sometimes let go, not a good thing with a couple of Comanche bearing down on you.
I think Phil just misspoke about the 90 grain charge, since 90 grains will fill the chamber to the top, with no room even for a round ball.
It would be interesting to see what the difference in dimensions would be between an original Walker, and one of the replicas.
I can put those charges (minus the 45 grains) in my Remington New Model Army.
Besides the cylinders themselves, the full house 60 grain loads were pretty harsh on those open topped frames as well.
I'd say 50 is the highest you should ever load in these, even if repros might have nicer metallurgy in their cylinders.
Subbed a man who talks sense. from Australia
The original Walker mould dropped conicals in excess of 260 grains. I don't recall exact weight atm and too lazy to look through my library of antique arms and accoutrements, but as I recall the ball and conical dia. was somewhere between .458 and .460 for the supplied moulds. The heavy conical behind a compressed load may have been able to match a 45 Colt with a 250 grain bullet and 40 grain charge, but I certainly don't see how since it's not contained and therefore not held back by a crimp to help out with initial pressure set back.
I don’t think they were that heavy
@@Everythingblackpowder Could be right I don't remember. I don't even have a replica mold for mine as I don't like the Walker it's just too big and heavy! You know Ian did some videos on the gun and I seem to remember one where he showed the gun, mould, bullets and told the weight of the original, but I don't recall what he said either...and as mentioned I'm too lazy to even search for that video :) I have a lot of books I've collected over the past 35+ years on historical guns and sometimes I will mix up what I read pertaining to one over another and I was thinking I read that they were in that neighborhood, but could be thinking of an entirely different gun.
Subscribed. I really liked your honesty and testing just to see what was what. I had to laugh! I had just mentioned to the Mate about how some of the first Walkers had the cylinders blown up by the pickett conicals being loaded backwards in them...and you came out and said the same thing not a second later. I have a Walker with an action job ( to repair the hair trigger that the revolver had when I bought it ) by a fellow named 'Goon'. I love to shoot it and use 50 grains of Pyrodex ( don't hold it against me ;0) and a round ball. That's plenty enough Boom and Smoke for me.
I had a pair of Uberti replicas. I think I crammed 50gr. of 3F Triple Seven under a round ball. Regardless, shooting that much powder per charge made for a LOT of fouling pretty quick. I could barely get through a cylinder before the damn things would bind up so hard, you needed two hands to cock the hammer. Between that and the loading levers slapping down with every shot, I found these are fun to shoot every once in a while, but I'm not really sure I would want to have to rely on one as a primary arm back in the day. I wonder if different repro brands are dimensionally different?
I measured my chamber depth and had some friends that own a colt second GEN and an army San Marco measured theirs and they were all within .010 of each other
There is even a debate to be had between the 7.62x25 tokarev and the 357 magnum ... also the we number of Beumont adams style revolvers in 50 and larger caliber in the cap and ball Era that I feel certain could best the energy numbers of the walker. None of this takes away from the walkers place in history or lessens the actual power of the walker one iota. It was a powerful hand gun ....still is. But with this as with so many things ...it is what it is .....and that is pretty much fixed.
I was never sold on the walker. Yea, its cool and all that. i just prefer a weapon that is just as effective at reasonable range, and not too wt’y. It does make for entertaining videos tho! You have shown the extreme limits and what is reasonable for the walker. Seems like a good bit of “fluff” in the discription with some folks. I do like how you go thru showing the steps in the process. Another fun video! Keep it up guys, you are apreciated!
Thank you
Maybe among other factors there is a wide variation in powder measures. Also a variation in granulations might make a difference in charge weight for similar volumes. Unlike smokeless, small variations in charge weight wouldn't be a safety issue for bp.
OK that is really interesting Jake. Now to me that is interesting as I have been pushing 35 grains of black powder through my Pietta 1860 Army Colt Replica, with a .450 200 grain conical by Lee bullet mold and I do not have the trouble seating the bullet that you do with that Walker and the 217 grain Erasgone bullet. Now I will give you two caveats with my load for my gun, the black powder I am using is a home made black powder, and my gun is basically stock and has not been slicked up like some guys have done to their guns. Meaning I have (not) c hampered the cylinder's nor bored out the cylinder's to a .450 bore, like how some go to a .358 on their .36 caliber gun's. So that makes me wonder if they made any modifications to the cylinder on their gun's for ease of load and to increase the load.
My analogy is that maybe by weight and not volume of black powder back in the day the powder just weighed more by volume!
All of your videos are good but this is the best one (IMHO) I’ve seen so far. This one got me to subscribe. Thanks for putting in the work on this one. Well done.
Glad to hear it. Thank you
I've had 2 walkers...
I could fit 2 30gr pyrodex pellets and a round ball . Or 63.5 grains or loose pyrodex ..unfortunately I didn't have a chronograph back then because they were ove $200 in the 1980s...
But I can tell you that that roundball wouldngo through a Dogde Dart fender at an angle, both inner and outer, the radiator, and out the front grill.
😁
I had a bison model 1858 that would take 2 pellets and a 200gr conical and it shot 1000ps though that 12" barrel respectively...that comes out to about 444 FP ... suspect that Walker would have been about close the same. Maybe a little slower because of the barrel, ..
If you use a drop tube the powder packs tighter, in a non- field situation.....
You make some very good arguments and present good evidence. My sticking point is that the Walker was designed to shoot a conical with 60 grains using a conical. I think the conical was probably a non-starter. I’ve loaded my Walker with 60 grains of Triple7 using a round ball without issue, other than the loading rod. Although your testing was very thorough, I’d like to see tests using 60 grains before I write the Walker off as not being the most powerful until 1935.
Thank you, but I respectfully disagree that the walker was made to use a conical with 60 grains.
The walker using a conical can't come close to 60 grains. 40 grains is extremely hard with the chronicle colt Designed the walker to use. It's extremely hard to even use 40 grains with any conical made until the early 1860s. And with those your not going to get much more powder. The colt Single action army with its original 45 colt load made far more power than the walker.
Thought I was going crazy. Stuck in NY for a job, so no real BP but loaded 45 Colt with appx 35gr of Pyrodex P, noted the excessive recoil and went to a 24gr (to replicate the eventual 28gr service charge) and found it much nicer and not lacking a n any real way.
Got a Walker by Uberti, loaded some “normal” 50gr charges with Pyrodex P and couldn’t seat a round ball…. Shot a “reduced” 40gr charge and was surprised at the recoil.
Pyrodex, Triple Seven and the others are awful.
What's wrong with 777? I only use it and never had any issues
I agree Pyrodex especially is awful stuff. Extremely corrosive and it is prone to hang fires since it ignites poorly compared to real black powder.
It would be very interesting to compare the chamber dimensions of the guns in question against each other, and then against an original Walker. It would certainly take away another variable. Could this be a "Walker challenge" in the offing here???
I have never had any form of walker, but i do have a Ruger Old Army, I am pretty sure I can't get 40 grains of 3f and a conical in there, but mine are 250gr, now i have to try it.
Good vid! I've been thinking about swapping my 1851 for a walker, but the loading lever actually stays up on the 51 and it'd drive me nuts moving it back up every shot on the walker.
Since it would not be a original. Just do a conversion to a 1851 loading lever catch.
Dont swap the 1851. Keep it and buy a Walker. Chances are, you will start missing the 1851 after a while.
My question is about possible variations in chamber capacities from one replica to another. I would want to see both guns tested by the same person using powder out the same container and the same bullets manufactured by the same equipment on the same day.
I do not have dog in this fight and would not have a walker. If I buy a cap and ball pistol it would be one of the 5-shot 36 cal police models built on the 31 caliber frame. that seems like a practical gun that might even still have utility into days world
You are a good presenter and kept my interest up for the full 30 plus minutes.
Well done!
Thank you!
The walker is still a powerful magnum in its time and today
Sure it is. I must have said that 4 times through out the video.
Fabulous and informative. Thanks for all your good work. The BP 45 Colt sure is a barn burner. Very few smokeless loads can match it.
Nothing wrong with the thoughts involved, but one aspect I did not see was confirmation that the powder dispenser was calibrated off a scale. And I am shooting Conceals that are 225 grains so that aspect has relevance as well. No idea what was shot originally. My 44s New Model Army pair are easily pushing 1000 fps with low loads.
Same powder measurer and same powder.
Black powder, Weight vs Volume
ua-cam.com/users/shorts1PiiypKgd5M?feature=share
Great video. I have wondered about this for a long time. I didn't believe the hype. Glad for your work.
Thx.
Thank you
Interesting well conducted presentation. I would suggest the swiss is denser the goex and weighs more for a given volume. I dont have any swiss to compare with. Of no consequence anyway as clearly that Walker doesn't seem to have the chamber capacity.
The most amazing part of that video was watching you pour powder from that big mouthed bottle into the powder measure. If I tried that I would have put more on the ground than I ever got into the powder measure.
Years of practice
Very informative and entertaining, and well worth a dollar. Could you do a similar treatment of the "tumbling live rounds" debate? ;)
Nice video! I always questioned the the power factor but never tested it my self. Looks plan as day to me, if it don't fit it doesn't ship lol
What I can also say is the ASP NMA gets 100 fps more velocity for the same charge vs the Pietta NMA. So barrel specs (bore) and or wear factor in as well.
One other thing you haven't touched on is the quality of steel in the early 1800s compared to steel today. If you could find a load that matched the pressure and energy of a 44 magnum and put it in an original Walker I don't believe the pistol would fare well.
You did a great job on this video Jake. This is a picture perfect way of making a video on a Controversial subject.
Thanks snapper
Quite a few of the walkers blew up for a number of reasons and putting way too much powder in them along with poorer quality steel and iron of time I doubt they were able to get close to .44mag stats very many times before bad 💩 started happening.
I agree with you, while the .44mag of it’s day it’s not even in the running when compared to the 44mag of today
I have loaded up to 45grns of 3f Goex with 220grn Kaido bullet for mine but I load off the gun
Not much to say on this one other than, this is why I designed the Mukwa bullets the way I did. The Dragoon bullet measures over .800, were my 270 grain measures .655. My 260 grain measures .650. Now this isn't over whelming cylinder capacity, but does gain some.
Now when Jeremy over at leverguns50 got just shy of 1000 fps. Not sure his charge. Though I think he tested both goex and 777. That's if my memory serves me. He also tested the same 270 grain bullet in the 45-55 walker cartridge for about the same results.
I talked to him when I was doing research for this video. I didn’t know he was using your bullets
@WillardMcBain I have in the past posted pictues of all eight. 44 caliber bullets. I've also done molds for eight different.32 caliber. As well as four different. 36 cals. I'll never find enough energy to test them all thoroughly.
@StevenMMan do you sell molds? I would love to test them
@WillardMcBain no I dont sell bullets or molds . I can't. I've been offering to people to test. But so far Jeremy is the only person to get any.. offered Garrett some and more and forwhat ever reason will not do I needed him to do to get it in motion. You have my email, I'm headed to the deer stand
@StevenMMan very good. Good luck
When I first saw and shot a Walker reproduction sometime in the early 1970s, when my grandkids say dinosaurs roamed, the friend who owned it said it shor like a heavy .38 special or light .357 load. Seemed pretty accurate then and now.
Most of the repos have smaller chambers, check the general john pitman notes. Original Walkers were 1.761" x .445. Uburti 1.629" x .447" . A scale should be used to more accurately measure the powder.
That's .01 cubic inches more volume in the original (assuming straight sided cylinders in both). I wonder how many more grains that equates to...
@@rharthart9477 that's .163 cubic centimeters. 2.5 loose grains of 3F will fit into that space or 3 to 3.5 compressed.
@@rharthart9477 incorrect calculation. (1.761*.445² - 1.629*.447²)*pi/4 = .01825 cubic inches either .3 cc either 4.6 loose grains. And I think the original chamber diameter was closer to .45", like other Colt revolvers.
would not make the slightest bit of difference,the barrel is to short to be able to burn even 40 grains of powder